Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

University Buildings

Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will make a statement on the sums available in the new financial year for capital expenditure on buildings for United Kingdom universities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Provision for capital expenditure on United Kingdom university buildings forms an integral part of the respective Education Departments' higher education capital programmes.
In the light of the Chancellor's autumn statement, figures have been made available for the resources in England and Scotland for higher education capital in 1993–94. Details of the provision for Wales are being published this afternoon and figures for Northern Ireland will be announced later.
The autumn statement also provided for universities to increase their scope for capital funding by enabling them to borrow on the security of Exchequer-funded assets.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister for that reply and have pleasure in welcoming him to the Dispatch Box.
The Government's policy is to try to increase the number of people in higher education, and certain penalties attach to an increase in numbers. I recall, many years ago, when I started my first-year university course, there were 55 in the class. A former colleague told me the other day that he is starting a lecture course next year with 215 in the class, although the lecture theatre still accommodates only about 70 people.
It is possible to use some facilities more efficiently, but there comes a point, with the expansion of higher education, when there must be an expansion in funding, too. Will the Government now accept that need and make substantially more public resources available for that purpose?

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his personal remarks. I apologise to the House for having exchanged only too recently the relative Trappism of the Whip's Office so I have not yet achieved the fluency and elegance which I hope is appropriate to my new Department.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's substantive point is that it is important that higher education is conducted in

adequate buildings. Much better use is now being made of buildings, as the hon. Gentleman said, and that is right. Where there is a continuing shortage of space, it is open to universities to apply for capital funding for a particular project. We are maintaining the state-funded capital project programme in the coming year, and universities now have the additional benefit of being able to borrow in the commercial market on the security of their existing assets.

Student Incomes

Mr. Etherington: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the expected cost of the study being made into student incomes.

Mr. Boswell: The estimated cost of the student income and expenditure survey is £200,000, including VAT.

Mr. Etherington: I, too, welcome the Minister to his new post and wish him well in these somewhat troubled times.
Will the hon. Gentleman consider extending the investigation to part-time students? Is he aware that it is my experience, which includes representations made to me by the parents of part-time students, that many students attending colleges and the Open university are suffering severe financial hardship? Is he further aware that many of them are looking after children or members of their families and that many of them are unemployed or in poorly paid part-time jobs? The Government should look into the plight of part-time students on the basis that, if we are talking about expanding education, people other than full-time students are involved.

Mr. Boswell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.
The survey is being carried out broadly on the same basis as before, in relation to full-time students, although we have slightly widened it in some respects. The issue of part-time students is separate. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, but I must remind him that other sources of income, such as employment or even social security benefits are open on occasion to part-time students. Part-time students involve a separate consideration and should not be confused with the current study.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I also welcome the Minister to his new post and can assure him that he was always extremely fluent behind the scenes. I suggest that one way of getting funds to students as money in their pockets would be to press ahead with making the membership of the students union voluntary. I see no reason why the students at my local university should pay £16,000 for a rent strike and £45,000 for sabbaticals and various other things that they may not wish to have.

Mr. Boswell: I know my hon. Friend of old and I am very grateful for her personal remarks. I shall take most carefully into account the suggestion she has made, but it may be for another occasion.

Mr. Rooker: In the spirit of welcome for the Minister, may I ask him if his survey will include the case of Neil Bennett, a mature student of Witney, Oxfordshire, whose details I have already sent to the Department? Mr. Bennett faces the imminent decision between continuing to study for his degree and losing his home and furniture, for which


he has worked eight years, and abandoning his studies, returning to the dole and keeping his home. How can students be expected to work and study under pressures of that kind?

Mr. Boswell: Certain numbers of students always suffer hardship. Indeed, I have two student daughters, one of whom graduated this morning, so I have some personal advisers on student hardship. If the hon. Gentleman has submitted a particular case to the Department, I can assure him that it will be fully and carefully considered.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Fabricant.

Mr. Fabricant: I am very surprised, Madam Speaker.

Several Hon. Members: We all are.

Madam Speaker: It is Christmas.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend realise that when I was at university, which was only a very short while ago, I and my colleagues had to take out loans from banks such as Lloyds and Barclays at very high interest rates? Does he not realise how much I would have welcomed the opportunity to take out student loans issued by the Government at low rates of interest?

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His problem is different from mine; it just seems to me that it was only a short time ago that I was at university. Certainly, at that time, finance was expensive. Student loans are excellent value for money, because there is no interest other than the rate of inflation, and that is very low at the moment. Many students have used those loans when they have needed and chosen to.

Schools (Essex)

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make an official visit to Essex in order to discuss with parents and teachers the future funding and levels of education in the county's schools.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): My right hon. Friend hopes in due course to visit all parts of the country, including Essex. I had the opportunity to talk to teachers from schools in Chelmsford and Basildon and county councillors and local education authority officers during my visit to the county earlier this year. The funding of schools and the level of service provided is primarily a matter for the Essex local education authority.

Mr. Mackinlay: What advice will the Secretary of State give to the thousands of parents in Essex who have received letters from their children's headteachers saying that their schools are facing a funding crisis and that they do not have enough resources to fulfil the requirements of the national curriculum, particularly in respect of books, equipment and, in some cases, teachers? Who is to blame? Is it the Conservative-controlled county council or the Secretary of State, and, above all else, what does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Forth: For some reason, Madam Speaker, the good will seems to have evaporated. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that it is, of course, the local education authority which, like all authorities throughout the country, is responsible for making local decisions

about how resources are allocated to schools and as between primary and secondary schools for those schools which remain within local education authority control. For grant-maintained schools, of which I am delighted to say there are a growing number in Essex, the matter is quite different and has to be treated differently. I am sure that Essex will look to its own resources, make its own decisions and he accountable to parents throughout the county. I am satisfied that the funding of education in Essex is perfectly satisfactory, as it is in the rest of the country.

Mr. Whittingdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he comes to Essex he will find the second highest number of grant-maintained schools in any local education authority area? Is he also aware that his own Department's school performance tables show some schools in Essex achieving some of the highest standards in the whole of the country? Will he therefore congratulate both the governors and the teachers of Essex schools on the excellent results they have achieved and on their wisdom in taking maximum advantage of the Government's education reforms?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and join him in rejoicing at the number of schools which, through free parental balloting, have decided to opt for grant-maintained status. It is a very encouraging trend which we hope will continue. The figures that he has given to the House show that it is for local education authorities, heads, governors, teachers and everyone involved to ensure that they get the best possible value for money and that the relationship between resources and results, which is often alleged by some hon. Members, does not exist and probably never will.

Teachers' Work Load

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding the administrative work load on teachers as a result of measures to implement the national curriculum and testing.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has received about 75 letters about this matter since the beginning of the new school year in September.

Mr. Nicholson: That figure does not surprise me. Although I and, I think, all my colleagues vigorously support the Government's objective of raising standards in schools, will my hon. Friend make a new year resolution to ensure that his Department helps the Government's drive against excessive bureaucracy, regulation, red tape and reams of white paper? Is he aware that the burden of paperwork on teachers is not a six-week wonder but has been reported to me on my school visits throughout my time in the House and is becoming a great concern? One hears of glossy brochures being introduced for the curriculum or testing, but, almost before there is time for teachers to study them, they are withdrawn and replaced by new ones. Will he work hard with his officials to deal with that matter?

Mr. Forth: Of course I share the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed so eloquently about excessive burdens of administration, bureaucracy or paperwork in schools or anywhere else in the public sector. However, I am sure that he will understand that it is very much in


everyone's interest that we get the definition of the national curriculum correct, that we are able to review it where necessary and that the National Curriculum Council, in particular—that independent body which we have charged with the very important task of defining the national curriculum —is free to advise teachers, heads and parents on the curriculum, its content and development as it sees fit. I will ensure that the National Curriculum Council is made aware of my hon. Friend's points so that we can get a firm grip on the matters about which he expresses concern.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister convey my welcome to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education on taking up his new appointment? Will he confirm that among the representations that he has received about this matter have been those from teachers of English who are worried about the rapid introduction of the key stage 3 standard assessment tasks for English? Will he advise the House whether it is likely that he will accede to their requests for a postponement of the introduction of those tests for one year?

Mr. Forth: No. When a difficulty arises it is always tempting for some people to go for a postponement, but that will not help. We are concerned above all to establish a level of quality in education, to define the framework within which it should operate and to give teachers the maximum support to help them define the needs of pupils and to be better able to deal with those needs. We are, of course, most concerned to ensure that those developments take place properly. They are carefully piloted and monitored, and we shall undertake to work with the School Examinations and Assessment Council and others involved to ensure that the assessments and tests are introduced with the maximum effectiveness and the minimum of trouble.

Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend recall that there was almost universal hostility from the teaching profession to the national curriculum when it was first introduced? Does he recognise that there is now tremendous support for it in all schools, but that there is also some anxiety about key stage 3, in not only English but technology? Will he at least consider a pilot scheme for a year so that teachers can get hold of the necessary paperwork for the key stage 3 exam?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's very important point. It is remarkable that when we announce radical new, measures to improve quality in education the knee-jerk reaction, certainly from members of the Opposition and often from others involved in education, is routine opposition. When they are introduced and prove to be workable, successful and helpful to parents and pupils, fortunately many people are prepared to take a different view and to support them. I hope that that will continue. I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend expresses. We are well aware of them and I give my hon. Friend the undertaking that, wherever possible, we will ensure that such matters are dealt with properly when the new tests are introduced. That has been the case in the past, and it will continue to be so in future.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does not the Minister realise that the national curriculum is overloaded and far too prescriptive and is, therefore, not workable or successful as he implied

a minute ago? Does he also recognise that the burden on teachers is made worse by the constant chopping and changing at the instigation of Ministers?
Will the Minister think again about the problems that have been raised by hon. Members in all parts of the House today because there are genuine concerns among those who know what is happening in the classroom that it will not be possible to go ahead with key stage 3 in English and technology? As there is so much concern throughout the House, will the Minister reconsider his statement on that matter?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady must be careful not to eliminate the possibility of review and change where appropriate. When I talk to teachers, as I do often, as do my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister of State, teachers do not say, "Don't change anything in the curriculum." They say, "If there is a justified need for review and for change, please will you do it?" That is the response that we are prepared to give. That is why the National Curriculum Council is currently involved in a review of the primary curriculum to assess the kind of concerns raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). Its interim advice will be with us very soon.
I will certainly not give undertakings at this stage, because of allegations of the kind that have been made today, summarily to stop the progress of testing in its tracks. We will take due account of the anxieties that have been expressed, take the advice of the NCC and then press on with proper testing.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the teaching profession has made a magnificent effort to implement the national curriculum and the testing that goes with it because it believes in the national curriculum and sees the high value of the testing'?

Mr. Forth: Yes. It is a delight to see my hon. Friend in his usual place, full of vim and vigour as always and expressing his knowledgeable interest in matters educational. My hon. Friend is right and he knows so much about the matter. The teaching profession has responded magnificently to the challenges that we have laid down. Teachers are getting on with the national curriculum; they are enthusiastic about it and want to see it work. Our job in the Department for Education, like the job of the NCC and the School Examinations and Assessment Council is to work together with the profession to ensure that we all serve the interests of pupils.

EC (Ministerial Meetings)

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what meetings of institutions of the European Community Education Ministers have attended during the United Kingdom presidency to date.

Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chaired the Council of Ministers of Education on 27 November. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) represented the United Kingdom. The previous day my right hon. Friend, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary


Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, had appeared before the European Parliament's Committee for Culture, Youth, Education and the Media.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister and I, too, welcome him to the Dispatch Box. Will he give the House an assurance that at every meeting of the Council of Education Ministers a Scottish Minister will be present to represent the separate, distinct and, in my view, better Scottish education?

Mr. Boswell: It is remarkable that, as I understand it, it has not been normal practice hitherto for Scottish Education Ministers to attend. I understand that it was most successful on this occasion and I very much hope that it will help and happen again in the future.

Mr. Clappison: I also welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. With regard to consultations in Europe, how usual is it for the President of the European Council to meet Members of the European Parliament?

Mr. Boswell: It is certainly not unusual for them to meet. However, it was distinctive on this occasion because the presidency and my right hon. Friend briefed the European Parliament the day before the Council meeting. I am sure that the exchange that evening was successful and fruitful and that it contributed to a very successful tone in the Council discussions the next day.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Why is it that, after 13 years of this Government, half a dozen Secretaries of State for Education and numerous reforms and Education Acts, Britain still lags a long way behind the rest of western Europe in the number of 16 to 18–year-olds who stay in full-time education or vocational training? Why do we have one of the worst trained work forces in western Europe? Will we have the same complacency from the new Minister that we have had from his predecessors over those 13 years?

Mr. Boswell: I have to say that I agree with one of the hon. Gentleman's remarks in which he made a reasonable conjunction between education and training. That conjunction is important, but the hon. Gentleman is way off beam in every other respect. We are expanding the numbers in further education and training much faster than most of our counterparts. We attach the greatest importance to further education and training, and we shall continue to build on such programmes.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his target for the number of primary schools to obtain grant-maintained status by the end of 1993.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I hope that as many parents as possible will consider the potential benefits of self-governing status for their primary schools.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some urban primary schools, having considered grant-maintained status, have decided against it because they are concerned about the future provision of their special needs and do not believe that grouping is the answer for them? Will he embark on a new information campaign aimed at

the governors of all primary schools and secondary modern schools, telling them of the distinct advantages of grant-maintained status for their schools and the amazing results that have been achieved by those schools that have opted for grant-maintained status?

Mr. Patten: I am grateful for the opportunity to reassure my hon. Friend that more than two thirds of grant-maintained schools have increased their provision for special educational needs above the level previously provided directly by the local education authority. About 186 primary schools have balloted on whether to become grant maintained. In eight out of 10 cases—exactly the same figure for secondary schools—the result has been a resounding yes.

Mr. Barnes: When that petition for opting out takes place on the ballot, no restriction is placed on the lists of parents' names and the uses of those lists for commercial or other purposes. Should not that matter be examined? Should names be generally used for any purpose other than that for which they were given?

Mr. Patten: I am much more worried about the apparently illicit way in which some local education authorities have got lists of names from schools and used them to incite others to circulate intimidatory literature to stop schools from going grant-maintained. Needless to say, Derbyshire is in the lead.

Examination Results

Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on his assessment of the relationship between spending by local education authorities and examination results.

Mr. Patten: High spending is no guarantee of good examination results. Some authorities obtain good results at much lower cost than others. I have looked at the relationship between the percentage of pupils in each LEA achieving five or more A to C grades at GCSE, and find that some of the highest-spending authorities gain relatively poor results.

Mr. Congdon: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he agree that the publication of school examination results and other research confirms that the level of achievement for schools with children from similar backgrounds is widely different? Is it not time that schools improved their performance, rather than seeking excuses for failure?

Mr. Patten: Indeed, schools in inner-city areas, such as Mulberry school in Tower Hamlets, Stockland Green school in Birmingham and Archbishop Blanche school in Toxteth, Liverpool, have shown that schools can perform well in apparently adverse circumstances. We should all look to those schools as beacons of excellence. I congratulate them, and other schools in those areas should draw lessons from them.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Secretary of State aware that about three years ago a study carried out by York and Sheffield universities concluded that when poverty and social deprivation were taken into consideration the results of most inner-city schools were as good as those of schools anywhere?

Mr. Patten: It seems very odd to me that the Labour party, which historically has liked measuring statistics of poverty, housing need or alleged social deprivation, so much dislikes the Government's pioneering radical measurement of school performance.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: In rejecting the Opposition's apparent obsession with equating spending with standards, does my right hon. Friend agree that time and again reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate have shown that the factors that lead to higher standards are high expectations from teachers and parents and some investment from parents? Does he agree that the investment that parents make in grant-maintained schools through their participation in balloting is likely to lead to such investment and, therefore, higher standards?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I would only add to those factors the leadership qualities of the headteacher, whoever she or he might be. A correlation seems to be emerging in some areas between poor examination performance, high public expenditure and a high level of surplus school places. I shall investigate that. Those three factors linked together seem to point to poor management of public resources and hence bad education of our children.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Secretary of State agree that the publication of school examination results generally reflects the social and economic make-up of England and Wales? His reference to beacon schools in inner-city areas is worth examining in great detail. In deprived areas, where examination results are generally bad, will he make efforts to ensure that proper funding and good advice are available to enable teachers in hard-pressed schools to achieve even better results than at present?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman must surely have noticed that I took the trouble a few moments ago to praise three named schools, one in a Liberal-controlled area and two in Labour-controlled areas, which have performed exceptionally well. Even at the season of good will, I find it hard to take the assumption that because a little boy or a little girl comes from a difficult background—perhaps from parents who are not well off and in an area with high unemployment—we should automatically have low expectations. That shows just how out of touch the Labour party is in the 1990s with the aspirations of ordinary working people in Britain.

Parents (Information)

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to ensure an increase of the information available to parents about their children's education.

Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to make more information available to parents following publication of the examination results tables.

Mr. Patten: I shall shortly be publishing, LEA by LEA, the assessment results for seven-year-olds and expenditure on primary pupils. Under the parents charter, the comparative tables of school examination results issued this year will be extended next year to include national

curriculum assessment results, truancy rates and information about what happens to pupils over school leaving age when they go on to their new careers.
School prospectuses are already more informative than ever before, and will include more information from next year. From 1993, parents will begin to receive summary reports of the inspections which will take place every four years in each maintained school.
Lastly, and importantly, parents are now guaranteed a written report on their child at least once a year. Last Friday I made further regulations about these reports to take effect next year—requiring all school-leavers to be given the highly successful national record of achievement as a passport to working life.

Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in my constituency and throughout Britain the results have been greatly welcomed? I have to say that his Department's mark for accuracy has come out as "could do better", but that has not detracted from the usefulness of the exercise. For the first time eyes have been opened to the relative performance of schools. In addition to the other information that my right hon. Friend proposes to publish, will he consider including results in other public examinations such as British Amateur Gymnastics Association tests for athletics, swimming awards, music examinations, and so on, so that we can get a clear picture of the child in the round at individual schools?

Mr. Patten: We certainly intend to do all that we can to publish more information, which enables parents to make a sound judgment about the schools to which their children go or may go. We hear a lot from the Opposition, and in a few days' time, in an effort to be helpful, I shall publish results of the tests on seven-year-olds for last summer and further information including, for example, public expenditure per head on primary school pupils.

Mr. Hendry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his welcome announcement that more information is to be made available, including the publication of school prospectuses, shows that the claim that the publication of examination results alone may mean nothing is one which can be fairly squashed? Does he also agree that that shows that socialist claims that parents could not or would not want to understand information about their children's education is nothing more than patronising socialist waffle?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend from Derbyshire is absolutely right. It is very patronising to treat parents in that way. What amazes me is how the Opposition continue to fail to understand the aspirations of ordinary working people. In the 1970s and 1980s, they did not understand the aspirations to home ownership—[Interruption.] The chattering classes who inhabit the Labour Benches these days do not understand the aspirations of ordinary working people to good education for their children, hence the publication of the league tables:

Mr. Spearing: Will the Secretary of State not review his somewhat arbitrary limit of five O-levels on one occasion as the criterion of performance in any school? What has he to say about the slow-learning pupil for whom I was once responsible, who got one O-level in the summer, two more the next Christmas and two the following summer? That pupil could not possibly have got five O-levels at one time


at the first attempt. What does the Secretary of State have to say about the performance of that school and that pupil?

Mr. Patten: I would not cast any aspersions on the performance of the teacher involved, and it was probably a triumph for the slow learner. In the White Paper we said that it might be easy for academically gifted children to get a number of O-levels, but that a small number of qualifications may represent a triumph for other boys or girls and for the teachers who help them to get those exam results.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Secretary of State recognise that there might be problems with league tables in relation to the publication of A-level results because the standards set by schools for accepting pupils in A-level classes may vary considerably? Some schools lay down minimum GCSE result requirements while others have a more open policy. Is there not a danger that schools will be discouraged from accepting pupils in A-level classes because they fear that when the results are published they may not be so good? Will the Secretary of State at least consider revising the method of publishing A-level results?

Mr. Patten: I shall treat the hon. Gentleman's question seriously, reflect on it and write to him. It is important to bear in mind that most professional teachers who take on a child who is perhaps a slow learner—such as the pupil mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—or has special educational needs, realise that they represent a considerable professional challenge. I applaud teachers who do such excellent work and the good results produced by teachers who help pupils with special educational needs.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the broad welcome by parents for the publication of examination results, we can clearly develop the system further by including such matters as vocational qualifications in years to come, as so many Conservative Members have requested?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. I can announce to the House that next year we shall publish results of vocational qualifications. I hope that that will be greeted rather more warmly by the Labour Front Bench than the publication of tables which they condemned on the day of publication but six days later they had done a complete U-turn and were in favour of the tables.

National Curriculum(Primary Schools)

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations he has received in relation to the national curriculum in primary schools.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend regularly receives representations from parents, teachers and others in relation to the national curriculum in primary schools.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that many primary school teachers, while recognising the basic objective of the national curriculum, believe that they do not have sufficient time to listen to young children read or to encourage them to read purely for pleasure? Will he ensure that the national curriculum is less rigid and allows for a slightly more flexible approach to reading?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That is one reason why the National Curriculum Council is conducting its current review. In my experience, some teachers share the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman, while others seem to have been better able to accommodate the demands of the national curriculum—we must balance the one against the other. I do not want us to rush into changes, and we are keeping an open mind as to how much things may have to be changed to accommodate the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is grossly unfair to children that they are not able to obtain good results in the three Rs, which are so important for secondary education and future jobs? Surely that is the purpose of the national curriculum.

Mr. Forth: That is, indeed, one of the important purposes of the national curriculum. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be reassured by the great emphasis that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister of State have placed on setting the highest possible standards for mastering the basics of education so that young people may be better suited to maximise their educational potential. All education Ministers are, and will continue to be, concerned about that.

Cleaning(Competitive Tendering)

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding cleaning standards in schools since competitive tendering became operative.

Mr. Forth: The Department receives representations from time to time on various compulsory competitive tendering issues. I am not aware of any recent correspondence specifically relating to school cleaning.

Mr. Michie: Is the Secretary of State aware that the current contracts given out for the cleaning of schools are totally inadequate? The standards of one of the schools in my constituency, Herdings junior and nursery infants, are not up to scratch. That is not a criticism of the school cleaners; it reflects the fact that the local authority did not have enough money to include better specifications in the contract. Will the Minister review the position of schools and, I hope, improve it?

Mr. Forth: Where appropriate, it is for local education authorities to set standards for themselves and put the work out to tender based on those standards. They have responsibility for monitoring whether the standards are being achieved. The hon. Gentleman should return to his local education authority and satisfy himself as to whether it is setting proper standards, tendering properly and monitoring the achievement of standards in schools.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that compulsory competitive tendering has saved local authorities a lot of money? Should not education budgets be used to educate children rather than to preserve jobs in the National Union of Public Employees?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Recent research by the Institute of Local Government Studies shows that cost savings of about 6 per cent. have resulted


from compulsory competitive tendering for local authority services while providing the same or higher standards. I trust that local education authorities will be considering the matter carefully to see whether they can redeploy into education the resources saved.

Testing(Seven-year-olds)

Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for further consultation on national curriculum tests for seven-year-olds.

Mr. Forth: We shall consult in the spring, as usual, on the next assessment order governing tests and assessments for seven-year-olds in 1994.

Mrs. Roche: Will the Minister consult the Secretary of State for Scotland, given that the Scottish Office has recently announced a system of testing which is based much more heavily on teacher assessment? If that system, which is overwhelmingly supported by parent-teacher associations, is good enough for children in Scotland, why is it not good enough or appropriate for children in England and Wales?

Mr. Forth: I would he the last person to deny the validity of the adoption of different approaches, where appropriate, in Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish education. One of the great glories of the United Kingdom is that we can take different approaches to these matters when we think it appropriate. The timing of the tests in England is dictated by the Education Reform Act 1988. Scottish Office colleagues have taken the view that, although the principle of testing is accepted, the timing may be more appropriately judged by those involved in schools. I believe that that is right for my colleagues north of the border.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does the Minister agree that most seven-year-olds very much enjoy doing their assessment tests? Will he congratulate the primary school teachers who have made the national curriculum work so effectively in particular, my constituent Anthony Wates, headteacher of Tavistock primary school, who is on the National Curriculum Council?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. We must not forget that if the tests are properly applied and if the pupils are given proper leadership and inspiration by teachers, young pupils of all ages enjoy taking the tests and find them useful and stimulating. In some of the pilot tests carried out last year, it was found that in many schools attendance on the day of the tests was higher than normal. That is ample and eloquent testimony to my hon. Friend's point.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall he having further meetings later today.

Mrs. Knight: May I tell my right hon. Friend that taxpayers in my constituency—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is finding herself in a rowdy House because we expect a question from her.

Mrs. Knight: May I let my right hon. Friend be aware that taxpayers in my constituency of Erewash and across the country are delighted that he successfully defended the rebate for Britain at the Edinburgh summit? May I also congratulate him—

Hon. Members: No.

Madam Speaker: Order. The House should have a little more tolerance. I am sure that the hon. Lady has taken to heart what I have said and will try again.

Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend also accept our congratulations on so successfully holding down the increase in the Community budget which was sought by the European Commission and some European leaders?

The Prime Minister: I can sense that it is a Christmas House today. My hon. Friend is right: it was vital that we defended the rebate, worth £2 billion a year. It is now protected until the end of the century. It was an issue on which our European partners knew that we were not prepared to compromise. It is fortunate that we were not represented by the Labour party. The shadow Chancellor would have negotiated on the rebate, and the Leader of the Opposition would have signed up the complete Delors 2 package, costing us hundreds of millions of pounds.

Mr. John Smith: In view of the appalling suffering being endured by the inhabitants of Sarajevo and other besieged towns and cities in Bosnia, will the Prime Minister join the French and United States Governments in urging the speedy adoption of the United Nations Security Council resolution to enforce the no-fly zone over Bosnia?

The Prime Minister: There has been a great deal of comment about enforcing the no-fly zone. The issue is being discussed at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe meeting in Stockholm and it will be discussed further at the London conference in Geneva tomorrow and the North Atlantic Council on Thursday. The imposition of a no-fly zone by the United Nations has already had the effect of stopping combat flights by the Serbs; so far as we can see, there are still breaches by helicopters and small aircraft, but no clear evidence of their being used for combat purposes.
We are considering our policy with our allies and partners, but we must weigh the desirability of enforcing the no-fly zone against the possible impact of that on the United Nations humanitarian effort and on the safety of our own troops. If enforcement of the no-fly zone put the United Nations operation at risk, the main losers might well be the people of Bosnia, and we need to consider that carefully before a decision is reached.

Mr. John Smith: While appreciating the concern that the Prime Minister expresses for the humanitarian efforts, and for the safety of our own troops on the ground, does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that there is a growing feeling in this country, as there is in the international community, that there is no point in a no-fly zone which can be defied with such impunity? The time has come for effective international action. I hope that the


Prime Minister will take the message from the House that he would be widely supported if Britain supported the other countries in making the resolution effective.

The Prime Minister: We have never ruled out the possible need to enforce the zone, but, with our allies and partners, we must consider very carefully how the zone is to be enforced and what the effect of enforcement would be on the maintenance of humanitarian effort, which none of us wishes to see end, either this side of Christmas or long after, and on the safety of our troops. Other measures may be brought to bear, and those are all being considered.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the great success of the Edinburgh summit, we have seen a further example of European co-operation—the successful agreement on the development of the European fighter aircraft? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that that aircraft is vital to Britain's defence interests, and is good news for the defence industry and for the 40,000 people throughout the country whose jobs are closely associated with the project?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The agreement reached by the four Defence Ministers on 10 December means that the development of a new fighter—to be known as Eurofighter 2000—will go ahead. I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on his part in ensuring that. The agreement is very good news for our aerospace industry and for everyone who works in it. It will also mean that the Royal Air Force will have a combat aircraft with the capabilities required in the first quarter of the next century.

Mr. Beith: Can the Prime Minister give miners and their families an assurance that not one of the pits recently closed will be prevented from reopening by failure to maintain them while the review takes place? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that, what value can we place on the review?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can place great value on the review. It is open, and we have made it perfectly clear that it is open. It is clear, too, that British Coal is perfectly aware of the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to maintain the pits during the interim period, and I believe that it is doing that.

Milton Keynes(Visit)

Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Milton Keynes.

The Prime Minister: I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country, and I hope to include Buckinghamshire among them.

Mr. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 12 months the private sector has invested a record £374 million in Milton Keynes, helping to create 6,500 new

jobs? Is that not an excellent example of something that we are seeing throughout the country—a fully justified growth in business confidence?

The Prime Minister: I think that we shall see a good deal more of that in the months to come—not least because of the very good news on inflation, which on Friday fell to 3 per cent. We also had figures today to show that factory gate inflation is at its lowest level for a generation. That is the clearest possible sign that we have yet seen that we are winning the battle against inflation, which is vital to industry, commerce, investment and jobs. It is precisely because of those successes that we now have the lowest interest rates in the European Community and a very solid platform for industrial recovery next year.

Engagements

Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wardell: As Christmas approaches and we witness the crisis of despair among the homeless not only in London but in cities such as Swansea, will the Prime Minister recognise that his vision of a classless society is rapidly receding and that our failure to embrace a growing underclass is beginning to undermine the very basis of Britain's being considered a democracy?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may not know that the latest count by voluntary organisations last month found a drop of nearly 60 per cent. in the number of rough sleepers since the Government's initiative some time ago. The hon. Gentleman appears not to have heard about that initiative: with Government funding of nearly £100 million, it is providing new hostel places in central London and 3,000 more permanent places are being provided or planned. More action is being taken to help the homeless now than has been taken for many years.

Mr. Trend: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Housing and Urban Development Bill, especially the parts that establish rent-to-mortgage schemes? Does he agree that it will create an excellent low-risk opportunity for young people to begin the process of owning their homes?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We certainly want to continue to expand home ownership for young people and others. [Interruption.] Labour Members heckle, but then they have fought all our reforms of choice and ownership, time after time. They fought the right to buy, and now they are fighting the rent-tomortgage scheme. The fact is that they do not trust people to make their own decisions about housing. They do not want people to be independent of the state, but we do: we believe in independence, home ownership and low taxation. That is why we are here and they are there.

Mr. Enright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Enright: Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher has been gallivanting through the United States of America, rubbishing Her Majesty's Government's presidency of the European Community and making huge sums of money out of it? Will he persuade her to give some of that money to the miners, who have been cruelly deprived—

Madam Speaker: Order. I hardly think that someone's travels have much to do with the Prime Minister. I think that we had better move on now.

Mr. Deva: I welcome the agreement secured by my right hon. Friend in Edinburgh, which will lead to the immediate start of negotiations for the entry into the Community of Austria, Sweden and Finland. Does he agree that the British agenda is now an agenda for the whole of the EC?

The Prime Minister: I agree: that is increasingly the position. We have achieved a significant turnaround in attitudes to the enlargement of the Community. At Edinburgh we won agreement for the immediate start of negotiations with Austria, Finland and Sweden, and for negotiations with Norway before too long. As my hon. Friend will be aware, we also won support for the eventual membership of the Visegrad countries. When I first proposed that in Paris less than two years ago, very few people supported it; now it is Community policy.

Nuclear Non-proliferation

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

The Prime Minister: The treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, of which the United Kingdom is a depository state, remains the cornerstone of international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation. Ten

states have become parties in 1992, bringing the total to 155. We continue to work for universal adherence to the treaty, and for its indefinite extension in 1995.

Mr. Dalyell: Can the House have a clear, unambiguous statement—given the contrary views of Mr. John Gordon, who was head of the Foreign Office nuclear energy unit from 1986 to 1988—that at no time did Britain infringe either article 1 or any other article of the 1968 non-proliferation treaty in relation to the sale of arms to Iraq or other countries in the middle east?

The Prime Minister: It is Government policy to meet all our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. Allegations that the United Kingdom may not have done so will be matters for Lord Justice Scott, and I think that that had better wait for his inquiry. I am aware of Iraqi claims. They are matters for Lord Justice Scott to investigate.

Engagements

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Lait: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's reports that 1 million more free eye tests were given in 1991 than in 1990, and that there were 7 million more private tests? Is that not a demonstration of the success of the Health Secretary's publicity policy on free tests?

The Prime Minister: Indeed, it is. In this, as in much else to do with the national health service, the Labour party got it wrong in everything that it said at the time. It peddled stories that people would not have eyesight tests, but the reality is now clear: more people than ever before are doing so. They know that there is no purpose in listening to the Labour party on the national health service —it is always wrong.

Transport Supplementary Grant

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the financial support that the Government will give to local highway authorities in England in 1993–94 through the local roads capital provision.
Local authorities need to know now of the annual allocation of transport supplementary grant and capital approvals for their roads, and I know of the great interest which right hon. and hon. Members take in these schemes.
We are providing £1,047 million for capital expenditure on local roads in 1993–94. This is a substantial sum by any standards, and is particularly notable because it is a record despite being in a difficult year. It amply demonstrates the priority which the Government are giving to capital expenditure programmes.
This sum will enable 41 major new schemes to be started at a cost of £93 million in 1993–94–55 per cent. more than in 1992–93. The total cost of these projects will be £318 million spread over the next few years. I am arranging for a list of the schemes to be included in the Official Report and in the Vote Office.
The list strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of rural and of urban areas and provides a fair share-out between the counties. There are 24 new bypasses and relief roads. They range in value from the Blackwater valley route linking the M3 with the A31 at Farnham, costing a total of £57 million, to phase 1 of the Werrington to Glinton bypass near Peterborough at £1.3 million.
In London, six new major schemes have been approved for grant. They are Croydon, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Wimbledon, Newham and Waltham Forest.
I have accepted large new projects in the conurbations of the west midlands and Greater Manchester, and in Merseyside in support of local authorities' success in the city challenge competition. In addition to the named major schemes, there is £310 million for bridge works and structural maintenance of principal roads. Support for bridge works has increased by 24 per cent. compared with the current year.


Authority
Scheme


East Sussex
A22 Nightingale Farm to A27


Surrey
A331 Blackwater Valley route (centre portion)


Hampshire 
A331 Blackwater Valley route (centre portion)


Oxfordshire
A44 Woodstock bypass


West Sussex
A24 Ashington bypass


Avon
Weston-super-Mare primary distributor road stages 4B 5C & 6


Cornwall
A388 Carkeel - Callington phases 1,2,3


Devon>
B3199 Tiverton southern relief road


Dorset
A350 Sterte Road/Hungerhill improvements


Somerset
A39 Cannington southern bypass


Coventry
A444 North-South Road phase 2


Wolverhampton
A4124 Wednesfield bypass and industrial access


Staffordshire
A527 Tunstall western bypass phases 1 & 2


Staffordshire
A520 Stone bypass


Manchester
Manchester/Salford inner relief road phase 2 - Chester Road roundabout


Liverpool
Russell Street - Berry Street link


Wirral
A5027 City challenge - Birkenhead Freeport route



Within the minor works programme., £50 million is being earmarked for local safety schemes. Money was first reserved for such schemes in 1991–92 to a total figure then of £31 million. So the £50 million allocated next year represents an increase of about 60 per cent. in three years. Since the average cost of a local safety scheme is about £15,000, this could mean the financing of up to a further 3,000 or so schemes. Assessment has shown that they give an excellent return for the money in terms of safety benefits, lives saved and injuries prevented.
There is also an increase in the support given by borrowing approvals. This is for work which is either outside the scope of the TSG—town centre traffic management improvements, for example—or which provides help on the early expenditure of large schemes not due to start construction for a few years.
Earlier this year, at their suggestion, we invited seven west midlands authorities to submit a joint bid for their major projects for local roads, rail and buses: I have concluded that that "package" approach has some benefits for planning local authority transport expenditure in urban areas, and that there should be greater flexibility, within the constraints of existing legislation, to switch resources between different forms of transport. We shall now consult the local authority associations in detail about that, and aim to introduce new arrangements for 1994–95.
Funding for measures to encourage use of the bus will total £15 million. Schemes will include "park and ride" schemes in Chester, Norwich, Bristol and York, experiments on innovative bus projects in Leeds and Bradford, and measures costing approximately £3 million in London. The bus priority measures represent a threefold increase on the present year and demonstrate our commitment to improving bus use in our urban areas. I intend to announce the allocation of resources for public transport schemes, other than buses, in January.
This is a very good TSG settlement in the circumstances. It clearly demonstrates the Government's priority of maintaining strong capital investment, and it will bring welcome new road and safety improvements to many areas around the country.

[Following are the schemes:

Cheshire
Chester park and ride phase 2


Lancashire
Squires Gate link road phase 2


Newcastle
A1058 Cradlewell bypass


Cumbria
A689 High and Low Crosby bypass


Durham
A6072 Bishop Auckland/Shildon link


Northumberland
A1061 South Newsham diversion


Sheffield
A61 Penistone Road/Middlewood Road junction improvement


Bradford
A650 Canal Road stage 1


Leeds
City centre loop road phase 2


Humberside
A16 Grimsby Peakes Parkway


Leicestershire
A563 Braunstone Way underpasses


Lincolnshire
A52 Grantham inner relief road


Northamptonshire
A45 Nene Valley Way " widening


Nottinghamshire
A6009 Mansfield inner ring road


Buckinghamshire
A421 Buckingham - Milton Keynes various improvements


Cambridgeshire
A15 Werrington to Clinton bypass - phase 1


Essex
A133 Little Clacron bypass and Corse Lane link stage 2


Hertfordshire
A414 Cole Green bypass


Norfolk
A143 Scole/Stuston bypass


Suffolk
A143 Scole/Stuston bypass 


Croydon
A 232 Chepstow Road - Fairfield Road - Barclay Road widening


Hillingdon
A437 Bournes Bridge Hayes


Hounslow
A315 Hounslow town centre - Urban relief road


Merton
A219 Wimbledon town centre - Alexandra Road junction improvement


Newham
A11 Stratford gyratory modifications


Waltham Forest
A503 Forest Road/Blackhorse road junction.]

Mr. John Prescott: The House will be surprised to note that the annual TSG statement, which normally comes in a written reply, is now to be treated with the full authority of an oral statement by the Secretary of State. I suspect that that has much more to do with the possible replacement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer than with transport. The statement clearly proves that the Secretary of State has that ability to create an illusion which is so essential in a Tory Chancellor, and which we have come to expect from a Secretary of State who is a distinguished member of the Magic Circle.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the extra £60 million in TSG first announced in the autumn statement represents not new money for local authorities but a transfer from the revenues in the highway standard spending assessment for structural maintenance, and that it will thus force local authorities to spend less on local and residential roads, which will lead to poorer standards?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that that policy will undermine, through poorer maintenance in our local road programmes, the welcome statement about the extra £7 million to be made available for safety schemes? Is not a more integrated approach to urban transport problems needed? It is all very well to offer resources to improve road systems—as no doubt the scheme for the Sheffield supertram will do—but the right hon. Gentleman should notice that, in the centre of Sheffield, bus deregulation has increased the number of buses per hour from 180 to 320, producing considerable congestion, environmental damage, and an unsafe city centre, where the Department's traffic commissioner has had to intervene to regulate the transport system.
The House will welcome the limited increase in resources for yet another Labour idea—bus priority schemes. But the red routes are not a good example of bus priorities. I welcome, too, the Secretary of State's endorsement of the Birmingham integrated balanced transport package. I note that no resources are yet available, although the right hon. Gentleman says that he now intends to conduct discussions with the authorities —perhaps it would have been better had he made a statement about the money available for the Birmingham metro, as was promised before the election. The announcements seem to reflect a U-turn in Government thinking on transport, which I welcome, because they now recognise that we need to plan and integrate urban transport policy—an idea which the Government have rejected for the past 10 years.
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that, although planting trees next to roads is important, like his statement it does not constitute a transport policy or deal with the real and growing transport crisis facing many of our cities? Would it not be better to increase local authorities' powers and resources to control their urban transport expenditure, because, as the Secretary of State has acknowledged by adopting the Birmingham package, they have shown the drive and imagination which the right hon. Gentleman and his Department clearly lack?

Mr. MacGregor: Once again, the hon. Gentleman is grudging, and on many of the issues, he has got it plain wrong. The reason for making the statement is that expenditure next year of more than £1 billion is clearly a matter of great interest to the House. I know from the many representations that I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic receive that there is acute


interest in many of the schemes among colleagues in the House and among their constituents—hence the statement.
The figure of £1,047 million is not an illusion—it is actual money—and when people see the benefits on the ground and the bypasses that have been built, they will not think that it is an illusion. It is new money—

Mr. Prescott: It is not.

Mr. MacGregor: Of course it is new money, which will produce new schemes next year.

Mr. Prescott: It is an illusion.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has an extraordinary idea of what an illusion is when we are spending over £1 billion and when we have 41 major new schemes. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, when my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic and I go around the country opening bypasses, nobody thinks that they are illusions. People are extremely grateful for them, even if the hon. Gentleman is grudging.
The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong on the question of the transfer of funds from the highway maintenance account. Although some funds are being transferred across to the figure, it is money from central Government, which was meant to be spent on bridges and on principal roads anyway. All we are doing is ensuring that the money is being spent on the bridges and on the principal roads. It is very necessary to do so. In addition, local authorities will be spending about £1.7 billion on highway maintenance next year, in addition to the figures that I have given today.
I believe that, as deregulation in Sheffield settles down —we have a traffic commissioner there to enable that to happen—the benefits will come through clearly for the population of Sheffield. The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of extra buses on the streets there. He will see that there is a bus priority measure for Sheffield in the proposals.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong on red routes, which are an excellent example of improved transport measures in urban areas. The scheme has been successful so far in improving traffic flow and in a number of other ways, which is why we are bringing it in formally across London.
The hon. Gentleman has again got it wrong on the package for the west midlands. There are two schemes, totalling some £38 million for the west midlands authorities in Coventry and in Wolverhampton, which are the two top priority schemes. Those schemes are in the figures.
The whole purpose of the package is not to take the hon. Gentleman's approach. He believes that the right way in which to tackle transport matters is for them to be planned from the centre in the socialist way. The schemes are designed to enable the seven authorities to look at their area as a whole and to come up with their idea of priorities, instead of dealing with them one by one. That is the sensible way forward, and that is why we shall develop it further next year.

Mr. Robert Adley: In contradistinction to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), may I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has decided to make an oral statement in the

House, because it gives us the opportunity to ask him questions? The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East thinks that an "illusion" is a Russian aeroplane.
May I ask my right hon. Friend a specific question about his phrase "different forms of transport"? Is he aware that there is growing concern about the effects of road transport on the creation of pollution? Would it be possible at some stage to require either his Department or local authorities to provide at least a couple of sentences on the likely effects on air pollution of any new schemes that are produced?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who talks about an important aspect of the schemes. Bypasses in themselves will substantially reduce air pollution in the towns and villages that they go round. Improved traffic flow also substantially improves pollution.
My hon. Friend will know that we are introducing compulsory catalytic converters in a fortnight's time. That will also have a major effect. Overall, I believe that it is essential to go on with a substantial road building programme as living standards improve. More and more people own more cars and wish to move around the country in them, and we have to cope with that. Nevertheless, the kind of schemes we are talking about today, and the other measures that we are taking, will undoubtedly help to deal with the roads pollution aspect.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome the 41 new starts that will be made as a result of today's announcement, and the emphasis on safety in the Minister's statement. Is it not a fact that, although the funds for structural maintenance are real, by the time allowance has been made for them, there will be little new money over what was announced a year ago? Does the Minister agree that small projects which are ready to go represent a main way of trying to bring the country out of recession, because of their effect on the construction industry?
While I also welcome the new packaging of funding for urban transport, the Minister's comment that his statement amply demonstrates the priorities that the Government are giving to capital programmes is something of an irony, for while they are going ahead, too many public transport projects have had to be shelved as a result of the autumn statement.

Mr. MacGregor: They have not had to be shelved, because we are spending the same amount, or rather more, on public transport schemes next year than we are spending this year, and I shall be making a further statement about that. Equally, there is substantial capital investment in British Rail and in London Underground.
The hon. Gentleman is right in what he said about the effects on the construction industry. Not only the major new schemes, and many of the minor ones that I have announced today, but also the schemes that will be in the national roads programme, which is now at record levels, will be of considerable assistance to the construction industry.
I also welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about road safety schemes. I am impressed by the impact that such schemes can have on road safety, and in particular on helping people in urban areas. Their considerable expansion will be widely welcomed all over the country.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the financial arrangements for the county of Kent will enable proper regard to be had for the needs of a new and improved roads infrastructure in relation to the channel tunnel? On the other hand, will it enable many of the urgent, non-tunnel-related projects to go ahead in the county of Kent?

Mr. MacGregor: There continues to be substantial expenditure in the county of Kent. Indeed, about £75 million overall will be spent next year. In particular, in relation to the Medway tunnel, we have included ir the special supplementary credit approval nearly £8 million for the Wainscott northern bypass, the Gillingham northern link and the Si ttingbourne industrial route stage 4.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I am disappointed that the Witton Gilbert bypass scheme in my constituency has not been included. That project has been a priority for about five years. If funding is not forthcoming in the near future, that scheme could fall because of the complications of compulsory purchase orders and so on. I have written to the right hon. Gentleman about the matter and am wondering whether it is still possible for that project to be included in the scheme. I urge him to re-examine the matter.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think it would be possible to include it among the major new schemes for the coming year, because we have decided those. A large number of bypass and other schemes that all counties desire are included in the TSG, but we must set priorities. That is why, as far as possible, we try to abide by the individual highway authorities' priorities. But I shall look at the scheme to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I must advise him that we have already decided on the projects for major new schemes next year.

Mr. George Walden: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the extra money that he has announced for Buckinghamshire, and I am sure that my gratitude is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who represents a congested town. My constituents in Tingewick will no doubt hope that the money will hasten the construction of their bypass, because at present in that village, when walking along the pavement, one is likely to be flicked by a lorry mirror. My constituents in Wing will greet the announcement with mixed feelings, because their bypass has resulted in a three-lane major route—

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that we are not dealing with a 10–minute rule Bill. He must ask a question.

Mr. Walden: I was explaining the background. I am anxious to encourage my right hon. Friend to examine the Wing bypass, which is in danger of wrecking a village.

Mr. MacGregor: There are, as I said earlier, many bypasses that constituents of most hon. Members would wish to see carried forward, which is why we have such a substantial road-building programme. This year, we can accept the Buckingham-Milton Keynes A421 scheme, which includes various improvements, and there is also, under the special SCA, a scheme for the Aylesbury inner relief road phase 2. There are opportunities sometimes for

very much smaller schemes for local authorities to undertake under another part of the package that I am announcing today.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister understand that many people outside the House will be very disappointed that less than 1.5 per cent. of the sum that he has announced is to be spent on bus priority measures? Does he not understand that there has to be a limit on the use of private motor cars in our cities; that there is a limit to the amount of pollution that we can continue to tolerate from it? We need from his Department a strategy for transferring traffic on to rail and environmentally friendly forms of transport, rather than this vast expenditure on roads, the money being transferred instead as far as possible to rail and public transport?

Mr. MacGregor: We announced in the autumn statement very substantial sums indeed for public expenditure, way ahead of what I am announcing today, for British Rail and London Underground, but that came out at a different time. I am concentrating today on local authority supplementary transport grant schemes. The figure for bus priority measures is a threefold increase on the figure that has been spent so far.
Many other things are being done to assist London public transport, so the hon. Gentleman cannot say that this is 1.5 per cent. of the total figure. I believe that what he says will be rejected by a very large number of people throughout the country because of the very big improvements that they will receive as a result of the expenditure that I am announcing today. Incidentally, that includes six major schemes in London.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's comment about congestion in London, and I take that very seriously. That is why we are undertaking the most extensive research that has ever been undertaken on road pricing, to see whether that can make a contribution in London. I intend that all the research, as its various stages are completed, should be published, to encourage public debate, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take part in that.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement today, including the Tiverton inner relief road in my constituency, will be very much appreciated by my constituents, not least because it will enable the town of Tiverton to become more pedestrianised, thus making it much safer for people when they are shopping? It will be warmly welcomed by the Tiverton chamber of commerce.

Mr. MacGregor: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am delighted that we have been able to include that scheme this year, at a cost of £9 million. I am sure that she is quite right about the benefits that it will bring to Tiverton.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the massive 24 per cent. increase in bridge works, from £111 to £137 million, simply because of old bridges, because of the effect of juggernauts, following the Government's policy of encouraging transfer of freight from rail to road, or is it in anticipation of the draft European Community directive to increase the maximum vehicle weight to 44 tonnes in this country when the derogation comes to an end? If it is


not for the latter reason, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government will resist any attempt to increase goods vehicle weights?

Mr. MacGregor: It is for all those reasons, with one exception, which I will come to. It is a fact that many old bridges in this country need substantial structural maintenance and repair. Also, in this country, as in all countries, heavy goods vehicles are getting larger. That brings considerable benefits to consumers when they visit supermarkets, and so on; there are real cost benefits to be derived from that, and we have to take it into account.
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that, in 1999, we have to meet the requirements of the EC directive to which we have signed up. We need to prepare for that, and it means a pretty substantial programme of work on bridges. Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is that it is no part of the Government's policy to encourage more transfer of freight from rail to road. We are trying to achieve the reverse.

Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's statement, taken with the previous statement on expenditure on underground and other travel services in London, means that the capital city has an exceptionally good deal out of the Government? Will he also comment upon the state of London's bridges, some of which are very difficult to cross? Is any part of today's statement likely to lead to an improvement in the bridges, particularly in central London?

Mr. MacGregor: I would not want to comment on any particular bridge, but I agree with what my hon. Friend said and welcome his support for the considerable increase over the previous three-year period, and certainly previous decades, which is now taking place in capital investment in transport in London. As for bridges, it will be for local authorities to decide what precise use they make of the additional money, but I am sure that some of it will benefit London.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Although I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that the Newsham bypass in my constituency will go ahead, what news has he for the Al in Northumberland, which, as he is aware, is the scene of carnage and death? Has he any money for that road, will it be improved or what is going to happen to it?

Mr. MacGregor: That road is not part of today's announcement—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Oh, dear.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) once again demonstrates his ignorance by saying, "Oh dear." It is part of the national road network and the £2 billion to be spent on that, not part of today's local authority announcement. We are committed to dualling the A1, and we are proceeding with parts of it now.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that today's announcement that the Squires Gate link road phase 2 in my constituency is to go ahead will be welcomed by residents and businesses in my constituency, especially because it will enable further and

better access to the business park which is already being developed on otherwise surplus land at Blackpool airport and to which it will be a very important feeder?
Does he also recognise the work done over many years by my predecessor, Sir Peter Blaker, and county councillors representing this party to get the road back at the top of the priority list where it was ten years ago, when this party was last in control of Lancashire county council, only to be put back to the bottom of the pile by the Opposition, who showed a lack of concern for my constituency's interests?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said, and I pay tribute to his work and that of his predecessor in drawing attention to the priority of this particular scheme. He has been successful in making it a priority for Lancashire, and I am pleased that we have been able to agree to it at a cost of nearly £9 million. All the benefits that he mentioned will certainly be brought about as a result of the scheme.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I thank the Secretary of State for providing the money for the bypass at High and Low Crosby near my constituency, but does he agree it will put more traffic off the A69 into the north of the city? Does not that strengthen the case for the north-west bypass of Carlisle as opposed to the southern bypass? I have not found anyone who agrees that we need a southern bypass, but we shall need a north-west bypass more than ever if the bypass at Crosby goes ahead.

Mr. MacGregor: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the bypass, which I know has been much demanded. Some of the other schemes he mentioned would be eligible for the national road programme rather than for this programme. I note what he said, but the important point is that we are going ahead with the bypass now.

Mr. David Sumberg: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when bus privatisation was first mooted, the Opposition told us that there would be hardly a single bus left on the road? Now, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) complains that there are too many. Is not that ridiculous criticism the final endorsement from the Opposition that our transport policies are on the right track?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and what he says applies not only to buses. I made a speech about aviation at lunch time today, drawing attention to the tremendous improvements in aviation, the huge increase in traffic and the much better services for air passengers brought about by the privatisation of British Airways and the British Airports Authority. My hon. Friend is correct to say that it is the right way to get better services for passengers.

Mr. Skinner: Will not the Secretary of State admit that he has been advised by his public relations people, who said, "Look here, Minister, you have got to improve your profile if you are going to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. Make a statement in the House of Commons. Go and speak about aviation." That is what the crack is all about. Will the Secretary of State now do something for people who ride bikes? Would it not be a great opportunity in the middle of this slump to have cycle routes all round Britain? That would be labour-intensive, and it would


increase the Secretary of State's public profile. God knows what will happen when he is Chancellor of the Exchequer, though.

Mr. MacGregor: Once again, the hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong. I have made the statement because there is a large number of projects which have been much requested by hon. Members and which I am sure they will be delighted to see happening. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover would also agree with that.
On cycles, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed my emphasis on local road safety schemes for which there has been a considerable increase in expenditure—up by about 60 per cent. since we began the emphasis on such schemes three years ago. That money will undoubtedly help cyclists. It is also possible to encourage cycle schemes in the minor works programme.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be considerable relief locally about the inclusion of the first three phases of the A388 Saltash-Callington road improvement? However, having raised expectations, will my right hon. Friend reassure me that on this occasion there will be no subsequent slippage as has unfortunately been the case in the past with similar schemes in my constituency?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for that scheme of nearly £8 million, which will also bring great benefits, as my hon. Friend said. I cannot give a guarantee about slippage; we will just have to see how the construction progresses. However, I very much hope that there will not be any slippage. Over recent years, we have seen not slippage but an acceleration of the completion of many such road projects, many of which are now being completed ahead of the original completion date.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Does the Secretary of State accept that the package approach will be viewed with interest in coalfield areas like north Nottinghamshire? Does he also accept that the package on offer is very limited for the Nottinghamshire coalfield? Perhaps he will give an undertaking to talk to other Ministers and colleagues about a package of investment to bring new jobs, new investment and a new future to declining coalfield areas.

Mr. MacGregor: The package approach will be of great interest to many urban areas, and we will certainly be consulting the local authority associations and representatives in the west midlands—with whom I discussed the matter when I was in the west midlands recently—before we take any final decisions.
With regard to the coalfields, the hon. Member will be aware that the coal review is still in progress, and I clearly do not know what its outcome will be. However, the Mansfield inner relief road scheme is in the current set of projects. Of course other areas would have liked projects. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will notice that we have focused on that scheme because we are well aware of the need for it in the area.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: There will be a great welcome from highway authorities and from the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety for the welcome increase in funds for local casualty reduction schemes. Will my right hon. Friend find some way of

providing further publicity during the year for the effects of those schemes and how they can help to protect the vulnerable on foot or motorised or pedal-driven bikes and how they can integrate with priority schemes for buses? By having through roads, through traffic, other people and the majority of journeys would be better protected.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am aware of the interest that he has shown in those schemes and the pressure that he and the council have applied on us. I hope that the council and my hon. Friend will believe that the statement is a very good response to their requests.
I am very impressed with the impact of those road safety schemes. I will certainly consider how we can provide a good deal more publicity of the effect of those schemes, because we are now talking about a substantial sum of money and a large number of schemes. The point that my hon. Friend raised about integration is a matter for the local highway authorities to work out.

Mr. Terry Lewis: I welcome the inclusion of the Manchester-Salford inner relief road phase 2. However, before the Secretary of State goes off to become Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he consider further TSG-supported schemes within the Manchester-Salford conurbation, which would prevent the construction of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road, which no one in the locality wants and which many of us feel is not needed? The problems of gridlock that we are experiencing now on the Worsley-Braided interchange have more to do with commuter traffic than traffic moving from Yorkshire, to Birmingham and to the south. If there were more concentration on TSG-supported schemes, I believe that £300 million could be saved on that route.

Mr. MacGregor: Clearly, one must examine the impact of schemes of the sort that the hon. Gentleman is talking about in relation to the national road network, not just in terms of the locality although there is often a big improvement for the locality in taking traffic out of their environment. We must also examine the matter from the point of view of improving traffic flows for business as well as passengers. That is an important contribution to easing congestion costs, and hence other costs for businesses.
I do not think that I can agree with the hon. Gentleman about the switch. However, I am glad that he has acknowledged the importance of the scheme which we have accepted at a cost of £14 million. Of course, there are similar schemes in the north-west.

Mr. Michael Lord: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement today. I hope that I do not sound too churlish when I say that it will receive a mixed reaction in my constituency. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a warm welcome for the Scole-Stuston bypass, which he and I know well and which will do an enormous amount of good?
Sadly, there will be bitter disappointment in the villages of Rickinghall and Botesdale, which badly want a bypass. That bypass has been on the stocks for a long time, and the villagers thought that they would get it this year. Can I urge my right hon. Friend to give that bypass the most careful consideration for subsequent years?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's co-operation in helping to bring about the Scole-Stuston bypass, which affects his constituency as well as mine. It is an important bypass, which has been long awaited.
As far as the Rickinghall and Botesdale bypass is concerned, I know the problem well because I travel through Rickinghall and Botesdale on my way home to my constituency every weekend. The bypass is a high-cost scheme, and was the fourth priority for the county; hence it was not possible to accommodate the scheme this year. When my hon. Friend looks at the details of the special supplementary credit approval part of the package, he will perhaps note that phase 1 of the Haverhill bypass will receive £1.3 million.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Although I am a little disappointed that the Secretary of State could not stretch the £50 million for the local safety schemes to, say, £55 million, I welcome the considerable increase from the previous figure of £31 million. In doing so, I ask the Minister whether he could have a word with the Secretary of State for Wales to see whether a local road safety scheme can be put in place from hypothecated money. Transport supplementary grant schemes in Wales must be a minimum of £5 million before they qualify.

Mr. MacGregor: That is true for major work schemes in England as well. Road safety schemes come from our minor works allocation.

Mr. Wardell: Not in Wales.

Mr. MacGregor: In England they certainly do. I notice that the hon. Gentleman would have liked more, and I am sure that that would he the case for many other hon. Members. However, we must bear in mind the fact that the taxpayers are funding those works. I hope that the hon. Member will agree that the fact that we have moved from £31 million to £43 million, and now to £50 million, shows that we are giving the matter considerable priority. The schemes are often small in terms of costs but big in impact.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I tell my right hon. Friend that, with good news of this sort, he runs the risk of being the longest-serving Secretary of State for Transport since 1979, although that is not too difficult to do.
I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to Hayes in September and opening the Hayes bypass. Contrary to the views of Opposition Members, the bypass has led to a great reduction in congestion in Hayes. Because the Minister has included the Bournes bridge in the programme, it will be a massive improvement to have the bridge at least straightened, if not improved and widened. My constituents and businesses in my area, especially Thorn EMI, will be grateful for that.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remark. I certainly intend and hope to be the longest-serving Secretary of State for Transport since 1979. My hon. Friend is right about the Hayes scheme, which I opened in September. I am very much aware of the benefits to his constituents, as well as to the many people who can take advantage of the bypass when travelling around London. I am glad, and I am sure that my hon. Friend is delighted, that the A437 Bournes bridge/Hayes scheme has been accepted and is one of the schemes announced today.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: Is the Secretary of State aware of the acute problem of congestion in central Greenwich, a problem which the Minister for Transport in London saw at first hand during a visit earlier this year? Can the Secretary of State give a positive response to the applications of the London borough of Greenwich for transport supplementary grant to explore the feasibility of a bypass to get round the problem and, in the short term, measures to effect a ban on heavy goods vehicles in the area?

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London is very much aware of that issue. The Woolwich road improvement scheme would have started too late to be included in this year's announcement. I do not know what will be possible for next year, but the scheme has been given some annual capital guideline to help with the design costs, of some £400,000. I hope that he will find that helpful. My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the importance of the town centre bypass feasibility scheme. He will continue his discussions with Greenwich borough council.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, which will improve access to Wimbledon town centre and at the same time improve safety at a notoriously dangerous junction. Will he welcome the fact that this expenditure will complement the efforts of local residents, who have upgraded the area by a tree-planting exercise entirely from their own efforts, in conjunction with voluntary groups and with the co-operation of British Rail but without a single penny of help from the Labour-controlled Merton council?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I too pay tribute to the work that the local residents in Wimbledon are doing. I am sure that it will be a good scheme, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has welcomed it.

Mr. Bill Etherington: Does the Secretary of State accept that Sunderland in particular and the north-eastern region in general probably have the worst road system to link it with other parts of the country that it is possible to imagine? Although the improvements on the A66 are welcome, two inferior roads go south—a two-lane motorway and the A 19 trunk road—a dangerous road goes to the west of Carlisle and a dangerous road goes north to the Al. Much more is needed to bring the region into line with what one would expect for other parts of the country with similar populations. What is going to be done to bring the region up to that level?

Mr. MacGregor: I was in and near Sunderland twice recently. I am aware of all the improvements that are currently taking place. Some parts of the country would look with envy on some of the road improvements that are taking place there. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one of the keys is to improve routes to other parts of the country. Business men in the north-east tell me that one of their biggest obstacles in transporting their goods to their customers is the M25, which they must use to transport goods to major markets elsewhere. That is why there is heavy emphasis in the national roads programme on the motorway schemes.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the A66, which I know well. It has been substantially improved recently, and is very much a changed road. Those improvements


will continue. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the massive investment that will take place to bring the Al up to motorway standard from London to well up into the north.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon and thank him in particular for including the Little Clacton bypass. He will be aware that, with over 14 per cent. unemployment, Clacton has the highest unemployment in the south-east. Does he agree that the improved access via the Little Clacton bypass will he of great benefit and will generate more jobs and investment in the future? Will he also bear in mind for next year the dualling of the Al20 to Harwich?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot make promises about future schemes, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the Little Clacton bypass. That is a scheme costing some £6.7 million. I am sure that it will bring the benefits to which my hon. Friend referred. He will also be aware that the TSG for Essex as a whole this year will be some £16.6 million, compared with £13.7 million last year.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In a response to his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) the Secretary of State asserted that compulsory catalytic converters would have a great effect. We wish that that were so, but remain unconvinced. Would he be prepared to give us the evidence that he has received from his Department or to put it in the Library? Is not the truth of the matter that, with the 140 per cent. increase in cars during the past 25 years—my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) assures me that those are departmental figures—the only way to combat pollution is to transfer much more traffic to rail? Is he satisfied that some catalytic converters are not merely the racket that we are told they may be?

Mr. MacGregor: The scientific advice that I have, which I am happy to put in the Library, shows that, while convertors do not deal with CO2, they deal with about 80 per cent. of the other pollutant effects of emissions, which is an important contribution.

Mr. Roger Moate: I readily acknowledge that my right hon. Friend has done outstandingly well to obtain major new investment for roads and rail. However, from the list of major new schemes it is noticeable that not a single project has been approved for the county of Kent next year. He will understand that there will be tremendous disappointment in many areas in my constituency and other parts of the county because many of them are desperately in need of bypass relief. Under the present TSG rules, there is virtually no prospect of a bypass being constructed for many environmental sensitive areas if a project is too expensive for the council but is not on a primary route.
My right hon. Friend will know that I sent him a list of 36 villages in the county which have no prospect of relief. Will he comment on that, with a view to re-examining the criteria for much-needed environmental schemes, especially for the relief of many villages in Kent and other shire counties? In Kent, the figures are totally distorted by channel tunnel-related expenditure.

Mr. MacGregor: I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks but, among the projects that I am announcing under the special supplementary credit approval list is a

scheme costing nearly £8 million—the Wainscott northern bypass, the Gillingham northern link and stage 4 of the Sittingbourne industrial route. I have to take into account the fact that Kent gets the highest TSG of any county—£75 million this year. That is a high TSG figure and will obviously have some effect, although I acknowledge that the channel tunnel link is a factor.
I also take note of my hon. Friend's remark about large schemes. There is a problem, and we have to get the balance right. If one simply concentrates on a comparatively small number of large schemes, which carry on from one year to another, it will pre-empt the ability to deal with smaller bypass schemes, which are often needed in many other countries for environmental reasons. I am trying to strike a balance between large schemes that flow over a number of years and new schemes, which could take place in a single year and benefit many towns and villages.

Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision to go ahead with the A 16 Peakes parkway to Grimsby will be warmly received in my constituency? Does he acknowledge that the scheme has been on the stocks for far too long and that we are delighted that he has been able to agree the application from Humberside county council? Does that not put final seal on the excellent road network that we now have in my constituency, which started with the A180 dual carriageway about 10 years ago and the Al5 Ermine street link, and will it not be the completion of an excellent road package?

Mr. MacGregor: I note my hon. Friend's considerable efforts to bring about the improvements to which he has referred, including the Grimsby Peakes parkway. He will know that in TSG terms that is a major scheme costing £13–5 million. Like him, I am glad that our efforts and his —have been able to bring it about.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that there will be additional funding to deal with traffic problems in Norwich? Having pressed, with the local councils, for "park and ride" and similar schemes, can I ask whether my right hon. Friend can give a little more detail of that help, which is so welcome in Norwich and the surrounding area?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend will know, I understand the problems to which he refers, as I am frequently in Norwich. The Norwich "park and ride" scheme around the airport will come under the special supplementary credit approvals and will cost a total of £3 million. My hon. Friend will note that the scheme is in his part of Norwich, not mine, and I hope that he is pleased that we were able to bring it about.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: Is my right hon. Friend aware how warmly the people of Hounslow will welcome the new proposals on the Hounslow centre urban relief road? It is a much-needed scheme in an area that is highly congested. Will my right hon. Friend get on with it and start the scheme as soon as possible?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, indeed.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his overall statement, and I particularly thank him for making possible the new "park and ride" scheme in Chester. That is an invaluable


initiative for historic cities such as ours, and will be welcomed by everyone in Chester—including, I suspect, the mother of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is a treasured constituent of mine.

Mr. MacGregor: I am glad that there is some agreement across the House on that issue. As my hon. Friend knows, I visit Chester fairly frequently, and I am sure that the scheme will being great benefits.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents in Eastbourne and Polegate will be delighted that the A22 Nightingale farm scheme is on the list? Without wishing to seem churlish, I hope that my right hon. Friend will look kindly on other transport infrastructure projects in east Sussex.

Mr. MacGregor: I note what my hon. Friend says, and I hope that he will agree that the scheme—at a cost of £4 million—will bring big benefits in the coming year.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on extracting additional money from the Treasury. He knows that I have lobbied him and his colleagues before breakfast in Whitehall and before tea in Loddon in his constituency for a bypass around Stone, which is much needed due to the traffic congestion and the desire for pedestrianisation. Are we or are we not to have a bypass around Stone?

Mr. MacGregor: I remember my hon. Friend's lobbying, and I am pleased to tell him that the bypass around Stone is included in the programme. I am well aware of the special reasons why it is desirable. Its inclusion in the list means that Staffordshire has two major schemes in the programme for this year.

BILL PRESENTED

DECLARATION OF WAR (REQUIREMENT FOR PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL)

Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Graham Allan, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Robert Parry and Mr. Dennis Skinner, presented a Bill to provide that war may not be declared, nor troops committed or kept abroad, by Her Majesty's Government without the approval, by a two thirds majority, of the House of Commons: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon 22 January 1993; and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (WALES)

That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Question agreed to.

Welfare of Animals

Mr. Alan Milburn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the keeping of fur-bearing animals under intensive conditions; to make new provision with regard to the treatment of animals; and for connected purposes.
I have chosen to introduce the Bill in an attempt to eliminate the most heinous of farming practices and to modernise the law governing the treatment of animals. My Bill has two aims: first, to end fur farming in this country immediately; secondly, to make the welfare of animals the yardstick by which farming practices should be judged in future.
Hon. Members will remember that, a fortnight ago, the House debated the Mink Keeping Order. Unfortunately, hon. Members were unable to take into account the welfare of mink and Arctic fox in reaching a decision on the future of fur farms. I believe that there is widespread support in the country and on both sides of the House for an end to animal abuse on fur farms.
A recent survey by Lynx showed that 78 per cent. of the population wanted a ban on fur farming. British people believe that fur coats are out of fashion, and they do so for all the right reasons. The fur of animals belongs on their backs, not on ours.
This morning, accompanied by some of my hon. Friends, I had the pleasure of presenting a petition to 10 Downing street, calling on Her Majesty's Government to end the practice of fur farming, with immediate effect. The petition was signed by 500,000 people and was organised by Lynx, Compassion in World Farming, the World Society for the Protection of Animals and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Despite the strength of public opinion on this issue, however, there are still 24 mink factory farms and two Arctic fox farms in the United Kingdom. That is 26 too many.
The conditions in which mink and Arctic fox are kept could not be more unsuitable to the nature of the animals. Mink are semi-aquatic. They spend much of their time in the wild either in the water or patrolling their territory, which can be up to 22 acres wide. They are solitary, and they have a tendency to avoid others of their kind.
Yet on the fur farms, mink are forced to live on top of one another in cage sizes recommended by the Fur Breeders Association of the United Kingdom—just 24 in long by 15 in high by 12 in wide. The cages are so small that the mink cannot rear up on their hind legs, something they do continually in the wild. They are denied access to water, except through a drip, and are deprived of the opportunity to perform even the most basic of functions written deep into their genetic code.
This leads to chronic stress, resulting in what animal behaviourists describe as stereotyped behaviour patterns. Mink and foxes kept in these conditions mutilate themselves, and cases of infanticide and cannibalism are widely reported. From birth to death, mink and Arctic foxes are incarcerated in conditions that drive them mad. Born in May, taken from their mothers and caged in groups, they are killed in November at the age of six or seven months when their first winter coats emerge.
The fur trade likes to describe these places as farms, but that is the last thing they are. They are factories—wildlife hellholes where animals are mass produced and treated as pieces of machinery for making skins for coats that


nobody needs. Each year, 250,000 mink are killed in these factories, usually by gassing in large killing boxes linked to the exhaust of a tractor or car.
It takes 65 mink and 24 foxes to make just one full-length fur coat. Ironically, since fur sales in this country are in rapid decline, most of the pelts are shipped to Scandinavia, where they are auctioned. This is one export trade of which I hope all hon. Members will agree this country should be ashamed.
The conditions in which mink and Arctic fox are kept in Britain's fur factory farms have been universally condemned by animal welfarists, by vets, by animal behaviourists and by zoologists. They have all concluded that it is impossible to rear and kill these animals for fur without causing undue suffering. Indeed, the Government's Farm Animal Welfare Council will not issue a welfare code for fur farming in case that gives the factories a stamp of approval.
Fur farming also contravenes article 3 of the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, which states:
animals shall be housed and provided with food, water and care which … is appropriate to their physiological and ethnological needs".
This requirement is echoed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council in its list of freedoms which encompass the fulfillment of an animals basic needs: freedom from discomfort, by providing a suitable environment; freedom to express normal behaviour, by providing sufficient space and proper facilities; and freedom from fear and distress, by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.
Unfortunately, the current law—by ignoring those freedoms—allows the Government to license people to keep a range of animals in appalling conditions. There is widespread public concern about battery cage hen production, the de-beaking of poultry, and multi-tier pig cages. There is also public abhorrence of the international trade in primates. Those naturally wild animals are kept in cages no larger than a filing cabinet.
Right hon. and hon. Members may know of a recent case at Shamrock (GB) Ltd. where primates were kept

with no bedding and exercise, and their treatment breached Home Office guidelines—yet that place remains open for business, licensed by the Government, licensed to torture, and licensed to kill.
All those practices should be ended. None of us needs a coat made of mink or fox, and we do not need to keep hens in battery cages to fulfil our lives. In fact, most people in this country and right hon. and hon. Members would have the quality of their lives dramatically improved by the ending of fur farming and the intensive rearing of animals in overcrowded and inappropriate factory farms.
Thankfully, public opinion is ahead of the law when it comes to concerns about animal welfare. Wearing a fur coat is no longer seen as a status symbol: it is regarded instead as a badge of cruelty and shame. Just as the trade in elephant ivory and in baby seal skins was ended by public outrage, it is time that the law caught up with public opinion and banned the trade in fur.
My Bill will do precisely that. It will also update the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to incorporate the FAWC freedoms, so that the conditions in which animals are kept will meet their behavioural requirements. The Bill will ensure that farming takes place without inflicting unnecessary cruelty, will give a new meaning to animal welfare, and will make society that much richer as a result. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Milburn, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Alan Meale, Ms. Tessa Jowell, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Don Dixon, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Brian Wilson, and Mr. Tony Banks.

WELFARE OF ANIMALS

Mr. Alan Milburn accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the keeping of fur-bearing animals under intensive conditions; to make new provision with regard to the treatment of animals; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January and to be printed. [Bill 2.]

Education Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Education Bill.

Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill has been allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 9th February.

(2) Proceedings at a sitting of the Standing Committee on that day may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 10th February.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the second allotted day.

(2) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed on the second allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

(3) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of each of those allotted days as the Resolutions of the Business Committee may determine.

(4)The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(5) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (4), and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(6) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken.

Proceedings in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

(3) The Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee.

(4) On the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Order of proceedings

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in the Standing Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken, except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Dilatory Motions

5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

6.—(1) On the first allotted day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to that period of two hours.

(3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion shall be added to that period of two hours.

Private business

7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on the Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill):
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a Member of the Government; and
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time appointed for bringing proceedings to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

10. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

11.—(1) Reference in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

12. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Education Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

I do not intend to detain the House long, but clearly the House will expect me both to explain the background to this timetable motion, and to say something about the arrangements for which the motion provides. The House is, of course, familiar with the purpose and content of the Bill itself, and it would in any case not be appropriate for me to describe it at length as if this were a Second Reading debate.
I will therefore merely remind the House that the Bill provides in part I for the setting up of new funding authorities for schools in England and Wales; sets out in part II arrangements for grant-maintained schools; reforms in part III the existing provisions affecting children with special educational needs—as a matter of great importance to many parents; lays down in part IV provisions designed to help ensure pupils attend school; provides in part V for education associations to be set up to run schools that fail to provide an acceptable standard of education; and provides in part VI for the establishment of the school curriculum and assessment authority. Those purposes clearly command considerable support in the country; indeed, they follow commitments given in the election campaign earlier this year, and in the White Paper "Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools", published in July, which people rightly expect to see implemented. The aim of the motion is to facilitate that, in what I believe to be an entirely sensible and responsible way.
To explain why we have thought it right to table the motion, I need do little more than set some simple facts before the House. So far, after 65½ hours of consideration

—including this morning—the Committee has dealt with only 14 clauses, and at the end of its sitting this morning was still debating clause 15. That leaves 230 clauses still to be considered in Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) noted when I announced the timetable motion in my business statement last Thursday, at this rate of progress the Committee stage could occupy around 1,500 hours.
The same point can be put still more graphically. I am told that, if we assume that progress in the other place —given that, at this rate, it ever reached the other place —proceeded at the same pace as the Committee stage in this place until last Thursday, the Bill would not reach the statute book until the year 2001. No doubt some of my hon. Friends who have had the opportunity—I hesitate to call it a privilege—to witness these deliberations at first hand will wish to add their own observations if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I think that I have said enough to show why I have absolutely no doubt that, whatever may be said in the debate this afternoon, any Government—and certainly the previous Labour Government, with their record of five guillotines in a single day—would now be inviting the House to consider the position in a similar way. There was, perhaps, one alternative—to let the process that I have described drag on for several more weeks, come forward with some even more striking figures on the protraction of proceedings, and then provide for a very short timetable to bring it to a conclusion. I do not believe that that would have been right, not least because it would inevitably have meant—as with a number of such timetables in the past—that there might have been little or no discussion of some parts of the Bill.
Opposition Members will no doubt argue that this is a large, important and complex Bill. There is no dispute about that: indeed, we signalled our recognition of it, and of our wish to see the Bill properly discussed, by providing—very unusually—for a two-day debate on Second Reading.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House set the record straight, and correct the impression given by the Under-Secretary of State in Committee? Will he acknowledge that the request for a two-day debate came from the Opposition? When I asked the Secretary of State to support that suggestion, he said:
I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to seek to influence that".

Mr. Newton: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who was very supportive of the idea of a two-day debate—did no more than acknowledge the accepted fact that such decisions are matters for discussion in the usual channels. Indeed, it was following discussion in the usual channels that the Government responded by providing the two-day debate that had been requested.
It is for precisely the same reason—our acknowledgement of the Bill's importance, against the background of developments in the Standing Committee--that we decided to take a motion that does not impose some immediate, drastic curtailment, but rather provides a sensible framework for the considerable further discussion that can legitimately be sought. The motion provides for a further full month in the new year for the Committee stage alone, with Committee not being asked to report to the House until 9 February. Within that period, we have not


sought to dictate to the Committee how it should divide its discussion. It will be for the Standing Committee itself to decide how much of the considerable additional time it chooses to spend on which parts of the Bill.
The same approach is reflected in the motion's provision for Report and Third Reading, for which two full days are allocated, with the first of them running until midnight. In the same way as we have not sought to dictate the pattern of discussion in Committee, the motion does not seek to determine, at this stage, the pattern on Report. I entirely accept as reasonable the argument that, when we do not know how the remaining discussion in Committee will go, we cannot say with the necessary certainty where we might want dividing lines—knives, as they are sometimes known in jargon—to fall. Instead, and entirely in line with the normal practices of the House, the motion provides for a Business Committee to consider how best to divide up the time allocated for Report, with its recommendations to be put for approval by the House at the commencement of the Report stage.
In conclusion, without attempting to pre-empt the speeches that we may hear from Opposition Members, I say that any suggestion that we are acting in a draconian or dictatorial fashion or are trying to prevent adequate discussion simply will not stand up. The proposals in the motion are reasonable and sensible, and provide appropriate time for further consideration of this important Bill. As I have said, we have already provided, in a departure from precedent, two full days for Second Reading. We continue to approach the Bill in the same spirit, recognising that the House should have a proper opportunity to debate its provisions. The motion clearly provides for that, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, in paragraph 2(1), to leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.
The amendment proposes three days on Report. The Leader of the House said that he wanted sensible arrangements, but he did not refer to our amendment. It would have been helpful if he had said whether he intends to accept it as a contribution to more sensible arrangements for this most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The speech of the Leader of the House, brief though it was, was a half-hearted attempt to justify what the Government are doing. He showed little awareness of the proceedings in Committee. Perhaps he was briefed by the Secretary of State, who knows very little about the Bill, not least because he has never attended the Committee.
I almost felt sorry for the Leader of the House, who had to try to defend the indefensible. As the business manager of the House, he probably has an eye on the problems that he may encounter later in the year, which might be one of the reasons for today's motion.
The Leader of the House acknowledged that the Bill is important. We therefore suggest that it should have proper and full scrutiny. That is one reason why we are very unhappy with the timetable motion. As the right hon. Gentleman said, two days were allowed for Second Reading as a mark of the Bill's importance—but at the request of the Opposition.
The Secretary of State—I am glad to see him this afternoon; we see him so rarely—claimed that the Bill is the most important education Bill since 1944, that it is the longest and that it will set the scene in education for the next 25 years. Indeed, he went so far as to say that it is the last piece in the jigsaw of Conservative education reforms. If so, it is obvious that the Government do not want us to see clearly the picture that will be revealed when the jigsaw is complete, because they do not want us to scrutinise the provisions of the Bill in detail.
I accept that guillotines have a part to play in our constitution, but they should be used only when there is a good reason, and that is not true of the Bill. I remind the Leader of the House that, when in government, the Labour party has never guillotined an education Bill in Committee. The Bill went into Committee on 17 November. The guillotine was announced, with the usual lack of courtesy to the Committee, on 10 December. We have had 58 hours of work.

Mr. James Pawsey: The hon. Lady is incorrect when she says that her party has never guillotined an education Bill.

Mrs. Taylor: I said "in Committee".

Mr. Pawsey: That is an interesting and fine point. I recall that, when Michael Foot guillotined five Bills, one of them was an education Bill.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman does not show his usual accuracy. He should re-read his brief from Conservative central office, and perhaps read the Library's figures. The only time that a Labour Government guillotined an education Bill was on remaining stages, after considerable debate on the Floor of the House and in Committee. A Labour Government have never guillotined a Bill in Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that correction.
The Leader of the House spent some time complaining that we have debated the first chapter of the Bill at length, yet on previous occasions the Government have boasted that the first chapter contains all their key measures. I do not understand how Ministers can boast about the purpose and importance of the Bill yet complain when we spend time scrutinising it.
Our job in Committee has been made more difficult by our not having all the information that was promised earlier, such as details on formula funding arrangements for grant-maintained schools—I suspect that an announcement will be made in the next day or two, with a barrage of other statements. When there is bad news to announce, the Government always do it in a package, and preferably in the run-up to Christmas.
Despite those problems, the Committee has made progress. Indeed, we have raised problems that the Minister has acknowledged as legitimate. He has promised to consider several of our points and to table amendments —for example, on the need for local authorities to take the lead in the provision of nursery provision and on the need to ensure compliance with legislation on racial discrimination. Indeed, more than once he has promised to consider amendments to meet our arguments about special needs. If we had not raised those issues, there would have been gaps in the legislation. The Minister has acknowledged the positive contribution that Labour Members have made in Committee.
In Committee, we have had the kind of debate that is essential if parliamentary democracy is to work properly. Yet, here we are in December, with 10 months of the parliamentary Session remaining—ample time for the Bill to have a proper Committee stage without resort to a timetable motion.
I should have hoped that some Conservative Members would agree with us: after all, some of them have not found time to make their maiden speech in Committee. They have come to life only when we have discussed corporal punishment, which seems to have excited the attention of several Conservative Members.
The Opposition have taken the Committee very seriously and have attended assiduously. We were shocked when on one occasion Conservative Members and Ministers placed the Chairman of the Committee in a very difficult position, because not one Minister was present when the Committee was due to resume after a Division in the House. That shows the casual approach of Ministers to the Bill. I must pay tribute to my colleagues on the Committee, who have highlighted so many problems and drawn on their own experience as parents, governors and teachers to try to improve the Bill. There can have been few occasions when so many new Members made such a contribution to a major Bill.
That may be one reason for the motion. The Under-Secretary, who has been carrying the Bill in the absence of the Secretary of State, obviously does not like being put on the spot. Time and again, he has not been able to answer the questions asked. Clearly, after only four weeks, he has had enough.
However, I doubt whether the junior Minister carries enough clout to secure a guillotine, however uncomfortable life may have been for him in the past four weeks. We must look for other reasons for the guillotine. Why have the Government chosen to curtail debate now? What debates and issues might they fear?

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Before my hon. Friend reaches that point, may I, as a non-member of the Committee, suggest that the Government may have their eye on other Bills in Committee, too? Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Government have no case on the Bill? If they allocated two hours for each clause—half the time that they say has been taken—that would amount to 500 hours' debate. At 10 hours a day, which is going some, that would mean as long as 50 days. But taking one hour per clause, forgetting the schedules, would give 250 hours of debate—or about 25 days. At two days a week, that would mean just over 12 weeks. Surely that is too little time, if anything—yet the Government want even less. So, as my hon. Friend says, there must be another reason why the Government want a timetable. They have specified a date, but not necessarily the hours to be spent in Committee.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. I believe that he may have a particular interest in one of the reasons why the Government are so keen to move quickly, and I shall come to that later.
I was wondering which aspects of the debate due over the next few weeks worried or frightened Ministers. It is interesting that the guillotine has been introduced just as we reach the clauses on grant-maintained status, which is supposed to be one of the main planks of Government policy yet which is clearly one of their main failures. We

are keen to highlight that failure, and the facts that while 1.5 per cent. of schools have gone for grant-maintained status, 24,500 schools have not done so, and that in an increasing proportion of the ballots people are voting no.
We want to highlight the anti-democratic nature of the proposals—for example, the proposal to allow a resolution for grant-maintained status to be taken at a governors meeting.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I am sure that the hon. Lady does not intend to mislead the House, but I remind her that current statistics suggest that almost 80 per cent. of ballots decide in favour of grant-maintained status. I hope that she will consider withdrawing, or at least rephrasing, the rather misleading statement that she has just made.

Mrs. Taylor: I shall not withdraw the statement, because I said that an increasing proportion of ballots were going against grant-maintained status. That statement is true, and has been recently checked. I understand why Ministers are so touchy on the subject—

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): rose—

Mrs. Taylor: No, I shall not give way to the Secretary of State. If he wanted to participate in the debate, he should have come to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be taking an unusual interest in the Bill. We would have welcomed his interest in Committee, but obviously he was not sufficiently interested to spend 60 hours with us.
I was saying that I was unhappy with the anti-democratic nature of the Bill, and the fact that, at a governors meeting, a resolution for grant-maintained status can he taken under any other business, with no advance notification. I was also about to mention the intimidation about which members of the Conservative party have complained. Conservatives who do not want to promote grant-maintained status have been put under pressure by other Conservatives. Apparently, Councillor Jenny Langston, the Conservative who chairs the education committee of East Sussex county council, complained recently that
a right-wing member of her own party should advocate local authorities, such as hers, should employ strong-arm tactics to beat off opposition in the parental and governing body lobbies.
Councillor Langston said:
We prefer to let parents make the decision and I think it's important we don't push them either way".

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I hope that the hon. Lady was present when I spoke on Second Reading—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] She probably was not. I cited letters from East Sussex county council which made it palpably clear that the education authority was distinctly unkeen on schools being able to choose grant-maintained status, and was encouraging schools, governor and parents not to consider the subject.

Mrs. Taylor: I am interested in the hon. Lady's view of local democracy—and I am sure that many Conservative councillors will be interested in it, too. Conservative councillors are complaining about what they consider to be intimidating letters from other Conservative party


members warning them what may happen to them if they do not start promoting grant-maintained status. So much for local democracy.
The next section of the Bill, which we were hoping to debate in detail over the next few weeks, aims to boost the chances of more schools becoming grant maintained. In the week before Second Reading we heard that parents at the Prime Minister's old school, Rutlish, had rejected grant-maintained status. But the last straw for the Government, which meant that they could not face long discussions on the Bill, may have been the ballot last week at Warberry Church of England primary school in Torquay—hardly in Labour's heartland. There was an 86 per cent. turnout, and the result was: those against grant-maintained status—399; those in favour—five. Perhaps that was the last straw for the Government.
Other parts of the Bill, too, need time for proper scrutiny. The problems of children with special educational needs, which were mentioned by the Leader of the House, are important. As we made clear on Second Reading, we welcome some parts of the Bill, and we hope that the special need provisions can lead to an improvement in the provision for many children.
However, we are worried, and we want to explore the likelihood that without proper resources, either the new proposals will not work, or they will work for children with statements, at the expense of most children with special needs, who do not have statements but who nevertheless have considerable needs. Such serious and essential issues should have proper consideration, and we fear that they will not be fully explored if the Bill is guillotined.
We need time to discuss other issues, too, such as the Government proposals for specialisation. Specialisation increasingly seems to be the Government code word for selection. In Committee the Under-Secretary spoke in less coded language than is sometimes used. He talked about the "dead hand of comprehensivisation"; clearly he favours selection—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are saying, "Quite right." Obviously it would have been worth while to discuss the matter in great detail, so that we could find out exactly what the Government mean and bring it out into the open.
We need time to discuss the issue of surplus places. I understand that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), the Under-Secretary of State for Education, had what may have been a constructive meeting on surplus places yesterday with representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. We should use our time in Committee to try to build on that.
There are complex issues associated with clause 244, which concerns the provision of goods and services by local authorities. Everyone in local government, on both sides of the political divide, regards that as an important issue, and one which will need a great deal of clarification. I suggest that those are serious matters which require serious consideration.
There is another reason why the Government are moving the guillotine motion, and that reason has nothing to do with education. The Government are so desperate to keep time on the Floor of the House for the European Communities (Amendment) Bill that they will sacrifice the scrutiny of any other legislation. Debate on the Education

Bill is being sacrificed because the Government cannot manage their business properly. It is being sacrificed regardless of the impact on the education system. It is remarkable that Ministers, who are only too keen to interfere in the day-to-day running of our schools, are not prepared to embark on a day-to-day defence of their education policies. We oppose the guillotine.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate. I shall speak in support of the timetable motion.
As a result of the Opposition's tactics, time for debate has already been severely curtailed. The timetable motion will ensure that there will be better scrutiny of the Education Bill than would otherwise have been the case. No amount of argument from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) will convince anyone listening to our debate to the contrary. There is no doubt that the Opposition's tactic is to oppose the Bill by all means possible. As I am sure everyone will accept, that is not the same as scrutinising the Bill thoroughly and properly, which is what the Government intend. That is why Conservative Members will support the Government and vote for the timetable motion tonight.
If the Committee continues as it has during the many hours so far, there is no way in which the Bill will have proper scrutiny.

Mr. Spearing: Like myself, the hon. Gentleman has a past professional interest in the matter. Did he notice that Ministers did not challenge my arithmetic in an earlier intervention—[Interruption.] They did not. I said that 12 weeks would be reasonable on the basis of giving one hour to each clause. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he is supporting a motion that will mean 20 minutes per clause? Can he really sustain that timetable? Can he defend it to parents and to teachers in his constituency?

Mr. Thompson: What I cannot defend to my constituents and to my former colleagues in the teaching profession—like the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I was a teacher for many years—is that it could be right for us to spend four hours in debate on every clause of a Bill that contains 255 clauses. How could anyone defend three and a quarter hours of debate on clause 4 when the Opposition failed to table an amendment to it? That is indefensible, and that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic. I do not accept his point. The point is that we shall have better scrutiny of the Bill by accepting the timetable motion.
I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Dewsbury has been so impatient with the proceedings. There has been so much unnecessary talk that the hon. Lady—I know that she has been very busy—has not been able to spare very much time for the Committee. Not everyone in the House is aware of that. I wonder whether she has not been able to spare much time for the Committee because she has found great difficulty in coming to terms with the Labour party's U-turn on the issue of grant-maintained status. I remember well the statements made a month or so after the general election. I know that the hon. Lady has great difficulty with the topic in the light of what has preceded the Bill.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will check the record and that he will confirm that I have


missed two sittings of the Committee. The reason was that I was visiting schools, which is apparently a legitimate exercise for the Secretary of State. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that I was one of the Committee members present at 10.15 pm when the sitting resumed after a Division. Only two Conservative Members were present and the hon. Gentleman was not one of them.

Mr. Thompson: I took a careful note of the amount of time that the hon. Lady spent in Committee this morning. I watched the Opposition Front Bench and I know that she was absent for the vast majority of the morning.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman has spoken for four minutes so far, including two minutes for interventions. Will he tell the House when he last spoke for that length of time in Committee?

Mr. Thompson: I shall come to the way in which I believe a Bill should he properly scrutinised a little later, and I shall talk about the support that I and many hon. Members of all parties have for considering the possibility of introducing procedures to timetable Bills from the outset. The way in which Bills are conducted now is nonsense and the hon. Member for Dewsbury knows that. Hon. Members of all parties know that.

Mr. David Jamieson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thompson: No, because I want to proceed with my speech. I realise that time is short and I want to allow time for other hon. Members to speak.
No amendments have been tabled by Labour or by Liberal Democrat spokesmen which would improve the education system.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thompson: I shall give way when I have completed this point. If I do not make progress, there will not be enough time for everyone.
I have listened to the debates carefully. Perhaps I should pick and choose between Opposition Members, but I should rather make the general point. I will then give way to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
The Bill is about the education of our young people. Opposition Members have failed to appreciate in their lengthy speeches on the Bill that what really matters in education is the quality of the work by our teachers in the classroom. There are many highly skilled teachers whose work in the classroom should be better recognised in the House because that is what counts in education. Education is about the leadership provided by head teachers in good schools and in schools where there are difficulties where head teachers do a magnificent job. That is what education in our schools is about, along with the wisdom and good sense of our governors.
I will give way to the hon. Member for Bath, because I think I know the point he is about to make.

Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill is about education. Indeed it is. Does he agree that it is not really about the quality of education?

Mr. Thompson: rose—

Mr. Foster: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can intervene at this stage.
Does he agree that that concerns the quality, rather than the structure, of education and that the Bill will do nothing to improve the quality of education? Further, the hon. Gentleman's claim that Opposition amendments have done nothing to improve the Bill is not borne out by the Minister, who has acceded to a number of our amendments.

Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friends and I have listened carefully to the contributions of Opposition Members in Committee and, taken as a whole, the quality of argument concerning education in general and the provisions of the Bill in particular has been deficient. In more than 65 hours of debate, we have heard little from them about the intentions of the Bill, which are designed to increase choice and variety in schools and provide incentives for good schools.

Mr. Don Foster: rose—

Mr. Thompson: I shall not give way again.
I welcome the statement today by the Under-Secretary on ways to increase variety in schools by allowing in pupils who want to study particular subjects, such as the arts, music and so on. In other words, increasing choice and variety is fundamental to the Bill, which is why I support it and want it to receive proper scrutiny.
The evidence shows that in grant-maintained schools there is a feeling of freedom. Staff turnover has gone down, especially in primary schools, and staff of high quality are applying for jobs. That is no reason to point to one type of school and set it against another, but those are the sort of points we should be raising as we discuss the Bill. Opposition Members say much about the structure of education. When discussing structure, we should examine the effect that funding, structure and mechanism have on the quality of education. I hope that we shall debate the matter in those terms once the motion has been approved.
When I first entered the House, I served on the Standing Committee which examined what finally became the Telecommunications Act 1984. That measure was in Committee for many hours, and as a new Member, I had the impression then that that way of conducting our business had to be changed. The same procedure has occurred with the Education Bill in recent weeks, with long, time-wasting speeches. I hesitate to use the word "filibustering" to describe those speeches—[interruption.] —even though my hon. Friends think that I should describe them in that way.
That cannot be the right way to scrutinise a measure of such importance. It is why I support the idea of timetabling Bills from the outset. That would enable measures to be properly scrutinised, for the way in which the Education Bill has been scrutinised so far has been a sham and a disgrace. The Opposition's tactics have done nothing for education. I am pleased to see the Leader of the House in his place. I hope that a reformed system will be introduced without delay.

Mr. Stephen Byers: We have been told of the importance of the Bill. The Under-Secretary described it as a landmark piece of legislation. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) called it a Christmas cake of a Bill. The Secretary of State referred to it on Second Reading as a far-reaching measure that would affect the framework of education, especially for primary


and secondary schools, into the next century. For those reasons, the Bill needs detailed consideration and scrutiny, the sort of treatment it has been receiving in Standing Committee.
Opposition Members are anxious to scrutinise the Bill in detail, because we recognise its implications for education. There is a danger that, as drafted, it will create in Britain an educational underclass made up of disappointed and disillusioned parents, rejected and bitter children and blighted and failed schools.
So far, we have spent nine sitting days examining the Bill, involving 55¼hours of debate. Those are the figures that matter, so it is clear that the Government want to work in the fast track for this piece of legislation. After all, the White Paper was published on 28 July, the Bill was published in October, it had its Second Reading in November, and it is now being guillotined in December. Why the haste? Is there some coincidence—is it written in the stars?—which necessitates the Bill being considered in that way, particularly given the significance attached to it by the Secretary of State and most informed commentators?
The Government do not want the measure to be scrutinised in detail, and they have not been prepared to embark on real consultation with those in the service who will be responsible for its implementation, because they are not prepared to discuss their proposals in public. The Secretary of State in particular, and the Government in general, will not defend the Bill in public. The Secretary of State has failed in his responsibilities by not serving on the Standing Committee, even though he claims that the measure will lay the foundations for education into the next century.
The right hon. Gentleman has refused to meet deputations from a range of organisations which want to discuss the Bill with him. He has shovelled off responsibility on to the shoulders of his Parliamentary Under-Secretary. Indeed, the Secretary of State has acquired a reputation for declining invitations to speak at important education conferences—[Interruption.]—or, when he has accepted invitations to speak, he has cancelled them, often at short notice.
The body representing local education authorities met in Liverpool in July. The Secretary of State was to have spoken there, but cried off. The European Trade Union Committee for Education met a couple of weeks ago. The right hon. Gentleman cancelled the speech that he was to have made there. A north of England education conference, to be held in January, was expecting the right hon. Gentleman to address it, but received a note recently to the effect that he would not be keeping that speaking engagement.

Mr. Forth: I remind the hon. Gentleman that this debate is about the timetable for deliberations of the Bill here in Parliament. I fail to see the possible relevance to that discussion of the matters to which he is now referring.

Mr. Byers: I appreciate the Minister's sensitivity. He is having to bear a heavy responsibility for the measure. The Bill needs careful scrutiny because there has been no real consultation. The Secretary of State has not discussed the detail of the measure with those who will be responsible for its implementation. Indeed, he is not even prepared to

stand on a public platform and defend the policies in this Bill in front of an audience that will know what he is talking about.

Mr. Spearing: Of course, this is in direct contrast to the late R. A. Butler and the 1944 Bill. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that Bill was taken in a Committee of the whole House and that Mr. Butler saw it right through?

Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I believe that one of the reasons why the Butler Act has stood the test of time is precisely because of the detailed consultations that took place before the Act appeared on the statute book and on the Floor of the House.
The Secretary of State has a responsibility, and he has opted out of it. We have a Secretary of State who has had more cancellations than Network SouthEast in the last few months. The nine sitting days that we have had scrutinising the Bill have already been deeply embarrassing for the Government. The Under-Secretary has had to accept that the Government can no longer support parental choice; he has had to acknowledge that all the Government can now talk about is allowing parents to express a preference for a school. That is a fundamental difference between Conservative rhetoric and what happens in practice.
The Under-Secretary got into some difficulties last week on the question of selection—whether it is on ability or aptitude, whether it should be 10 per cent., or more, or less, and what we mean by a significant change of character which would require a request under the statutory provisions to the Secretary of State. Such difficulties did the Under-Secretary get into that yesterday the Government had to publish a consultation document so that people could consider the options available to the Government. At last some consultation was to take place, but too little, too late, and consultation only because of the difficulties the Under-Secretary got himself into in Committee. It is the detailed scrutiny in the Committee that is throwing up these difficulties and problems.
A third problem identified very clearly in Committee was the funding of grant-maintained schools. What are the Government's intentions with regard to the future when schools opt out of local education authority control? Will those schools continue to be funded on the basis of the present levels of spending by the individual local education authorities, or will the link be broken?
Just a few weeks ago, the Under-Secretary made a very important statement, when he said that the link could not be retained. That is bad news for those schools in the 65 local education authorities that spend above their Government standard spending assessment on education. If the link is broken, those schools, if they achieve grant-maintained status, will get less money under the funding agency than they get under their local education authority.
We also saw revealed the absurd position whereby, in some cases, the funding agency would have dual or parallel responsibility with the local education authority, even though only a handful of parents would have had the opportunity to vote on whether the school should opt out of local authority funding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) gave an important example in Committee—that of the Jewish free school in Camden, where only 54 pupils out


of 1,000 live in Camden local authority area. If that school were to opt out—they are about to start the balloting process, I understand—the funding agency, under the Bill as it stands at present, would share the responsibility with Camden for the strategic planning of education within that area, although only 54 Camden parents would have been able to vote in that ballot. So much for democracy; so much for parental choice.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury has said, it is no accident that the guillotine is to be introduced just as the Committee begins detailed scrutiny of the provisions relating to the opting-out procedures. It is because the Government are only too aware that opting out, whether in principle or in practice, has not been the success that Ministers would like it to be. Indeed, in many cases., we have seen intimidation of parents, and schools facing very real difficulties in terms of meeting the requirements with regard to their funding budgets.
The position is this, and I will give just a couple of examples. In Codsall school in Staffordshire, those who were supporting opting out wrote to individual parents saying that, if they did not vote—

Mr. Rod Richards: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot for the life of me see what these examples have to do with the motion that we are debating.

Mr. Byers: I can understand why Government Members are finding the details difficult. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, which is more than he has been able to do in the Standing Committee.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I have taken about as much of the intimidation angle as I can. Last week:, a school in my constituency voted to go grant-maintained. Over 57 per cent of the parents voted in the ballot, and 85 per cent. of those who voted were in favour of going grant-maintained. There was no intimidation as far as that school was concerned, but there certainly was blatant intimidation from the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, which threatened all sorts of things if the school went grant-maintained. I am pleased to say that the parents ignored that intimidation: they voted to put the pupils first and go for grant-maintained status.

Mr. Byers: That is an interesting contribution, but it is unfortunate that, in the example just given, less than half the parents entitled to vote voted in favour of opting out. Nevertheless, had the hon. Gentleman been in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury giving some recent examples of the way the ballots have gone against opting out in the last few days.
I return to the position on intimidation, and I am relying on a reply I received to a question I put to the Under-Secretary. The reply was very clear and simple, and it is worth having it on the record in this debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I have been very tolerant so far with the hon. Gentleman, but he is not referring very much to the motion. I should be grateful if he would get back to it.

Mr. Byers: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to reveal the importance of the detailed scrutiny which has thrown up some of these difficulties, but I will, of course, take your guidance on that.
The important point which the House needs to recognise is that the timetable motion before us today will restrict the detailed scrutiny that can be given to the Bill as at present before the Standing Committee. The timetable allows about 20 minutes per clause. I do not believe that that sort of time will allow the detailed scrutiny that is essential if we are to get legislation on to the statute book that will meet the challenge of the future.
We will not have the opportunity to debate in detail the whole question of special education needs. I believe that most hon. Members recognise that the Education Act 1981, which did so much to raise the issue of special education needs, now needs to be amended. This Bill is an opportunity to do that. Many of us have reservations about whether, as at present worded, it would meet existing needs. Many of us feel that it will not.
A matter which has been little debated is the proposed merger of the School Examinations and Assessment Council and the National Curriculum Council to bring into one body not only examinations and assessment but the decisions about what happens in our schools. Under the Bill, that body will be appointed solely by the Secretary of State, which causes many of us great concern. It smacks of the 1984 thought police of George Orwell rather than an enlightened democracy of the 1990s.
The parliamentary procedure that we are debating will not deceive parents. They will know that no additional money is being made available under the Bill. They will also know that the Bill does nothing to reduce class size, repair leaking roofs or provide new textbooks, and that it does nothing to raise standards.
Parliament cannot discharge its responsibilities under the timetable. It may be politically convenient for the Government, given their difficulties over the Maastricht treaty, but it puts at risk the education opportunities of future generations. It represents a triumph of dogma over reason, for which the Government will rightly stand condemned.

Sir Peter Emery: However important the Bill is—and there is no doubt that it is a major plank of the Government's legislation for this Parliament—this debate is unnecessary. I say that with due modesty. It would have been unnecessary if the House had had the wisdom or foresight to adopt the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure, which were made as long ago as July 1986.
The Opposition no longer need to prove their virility by forcing the Government into timetable motions on the Floor of the House. The present system of timetabling is old-fashioned and archaic, and a major waste of prime time. In the previous Parliament, 14 half days were wasted on debates such as this which do nothing to help Bills or to create press publicity. In the early 1960s, the House was absolutely crowded for a timetable motion. It was a full day's debate and caused massive uproar. Today it is dealt with like any other minor procedural matter.
I quickly remind the House how the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure would apply to the Bill. This is a good opportunity to show how the methods


which we suggested and which, thank goodness, were approved by the Jopling Committee, would work on such legislation.
First, I shall rid the House of a major procedural shibboleth—the concept that the one option which the Opposition have to beat the Government is time, especially time in Committee. Since 1945, no piece of legislation introduced by a Government of either party and which has appeared in the Queen's speech has failed to reach the statute book in a full Parliament. The Telecommunications Bill did not get through and had to be introduced in a new Parliament, but that was because the election was in May—if it had gone to a full Parliament, it would have been passed.
It is false to believe that a delay in Committee wins anything for the Opposition. It merely means that poor Back Benchers and Opposition spokesmen spend a great deal of time trailing through hours of what I regard as unnecessarily lengthy debate on major matters.
How would the Procedure Committee's recommendations have applied in this case? Paragraph 16(a) on page vii of the Committee's report of 9 July 1986 states:
Proceedings in standing Committee should not continue beyond 10 pm".
But the most important point is:
A Business Sub-Committee of nine Members or one third of the standing committee's membership (whichever is the greater) should be nominated by the Committee of Selection when a standing committee is nominated and should be chaired by the Chairman of the standing committee".
If that had happened, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools and my hon. Friends the Members for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Westbury (Mr. Faber) and the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) and for Bath (Mr. Foster) might have been nominated as members of the business sub-committee.
The report continues:
The Business Sub-Committee should meet after the sixth sitting of the standing committee and should report to the standing committee … the date by which the standing committee should report the bill".
That describes exactly the current situation. What is more, anyone who knows anything about the workings of this place will know that from the moment the Queen's Speech is announced, the authorities have named dates by which time all legislation must pass out of Committee to go to another place. There is no secret about that. If the Opposition force a guillotine, they do not put back the date any further but reduce the time available for debate on the remainder of the Bill.
The Select Committee's recommendations continue:
the number of sittings which would need to be allotted to the consideration of the Bill
should also be decided by that Committee
in order to ensure that there would be time for all parts of it to be adequately scrutinised".
That means that it is up to the people serving on the Committee to decide in the time set for the reporting of the Bill exactly how much time they want to spend on it. It gives power to the usual channels, and the usual channels think that they are best at negotiating the length of that time.
The Opposition must realise that once the Government know that a Bill is to reported by a certain date, they are happy to hand over to the Opposition all the subjects of debate and whatever time scale the Opposition may wish. That gives considerable extra power to the Opposition who frequently do not realise it.
The Select Committee recommended:
No motion to approve a report from the Business Sub-Committee should be made until … after the first appearance of the terms of its report … Such a motion would be debatable for 1½ hours".
If, after a further six sittings, the sub-committee should meet again and if it is considered that progress is still not satisfactory, exact slots or knives could then be negotiated between members of that Committee.

Mr. Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member speaking to the motion?

Sir Peter Emery: Indeed I am.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been listening with interest and I have been tempted two or three times to intervene to suggest that the hon. Gentleman should refer directly to the guillotine motion rather than the guillotine procedure in general.

Sir Peter Emery: In order to allow many hon. Members to participate, I was trying not to refer to the fact that at every stage what I am suggesting is ruled out by the present motion. The weakness of the timetable motion needs correcting. If the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and the Chair wish it, I shall be delighted to continue in that vein.
One of the Committee's recommendations which is not mentioned in the motion is that every part of the Bill should be adequately discussed. That must be what the House wants if legislation is to be fully considered. It is equally the case that the present system does not mean that there will be adequate discussion of all sections of a Bill. However, the recommendations of the Procedure Committee achieve that. They strengthen the timetable motion and improve it. They make it a more sensible procedure than that which exists at present.
There is a definite view to move away from the present procedure. The all-party House of Commons reform group found that 72.8 per cent. of the 323 hon. Members who replied to a questionnaire were in favour of all Bills being timetabled in advance.

Mr. Martlew: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking to the motion before the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I advise the hon. Gentleman that it has been traditional to allow reference to past and future procedures that might benefit future guillotine motions. That is what the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is doing, and that is why I am allowing him to continue.

Sir Peter Emery: The comments of the hon. Member for Carlilse (Mr. Martlew) are a bit hot. We have heard many references from Opposition Members to outside meetings not being right and about Ministers not doing this or that outside the Chamber. However, we have heard little about the motion or about the Bill. I do not know how the hon. Member for Carlisle has the nerve to interfere in the debate in that way.
Paragraphs 67 and 69 of the Jopling Committee report make it clear that the majority of hon. Members are interested in improving the current system of timetabling Bills. The then shadow Leader of the House, the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip and the Leader of the House were unanimous in the belief that we should find a better way to carry out the procedure.
I hope that I have been allowed to show that the Opposition lose none of their power by adopting the recommendation of the Procedure Committee rat her than adopting the current procedure or amending it. If it is properly used, the Procedure Committee's recommendation should allow the Opposition to call the tune in respect of what they want to debate in Committee. It will also ensure that all sections of a Bill are considered in Committee.
All that can be achieved without having to spend an exaggerated length of time in Committee as was the case before this timetable motion was tabled. No one can say that the speeches Upstairs were concise, short or to the point. We want to try to ensure that we can consider all parts of a Bill and not waste time on the early clauses. That can be achieved, and if it is achieved it will benefit the House.

Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has made several interesting points, and perhaps I might refer to them later in my speech. However, I want to begin by referring to the introductory comments of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). She rightly made the point that the Leader of the House has not made a strong case to justify the guillotine motion, particularly not at this stage in the Committee proceedings.
The Secretary of State for Education told us that the Bill is intended to last for 25 years. While I do not believe that that is likely as the Government have in 13 years had to introduce 17 major Education Bills, it is likely that the Bill might last 10 months—if the Government are right, it is a pity that they have decided to guillotine the discussion on the Bill less than 25 weeks after the publication of the White Paper; after less than 25 working days since Second Reading; and after fewer than 25 Committee sittings.
Many Opposition Members have referred to the unseemly haste of the guillotine procedure. The unseemly haste in which the Bill was cobbled together has meant that it has many flaws. It was necessary in Committee for Opposition Members to identify the various flaws in the Bill for Conservative Members. It is sad that, in addition to Opposition Members, Conservative Members are also finding flaws in the legislation. As a result, the Minister and Conservative Members have had to table a large number of amendments.
After the guillotine motion has been passed, there will be time only to consider the Government amendments and amendments tabled by Conservative Members. As I am a new Member, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be more aware than I that "Erskine May" states in the 21st edition of "Parliamentary Practice" that guillotine motions
are the most drastic method of curtailing debate … it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate.
I believe that on this occasion, that balance is truly being upset.
Reference has been made to earlier guillotine motions. Many Conservative Members will be aware that the Education Reform Act 1988 was debated in Committee for 88 hours before the guillotine fell. Although that Bill was important, it had far fewer clauses than the current Bill. It had only 147 clauses, in comparison to the 255 in this Bill.
I accept what the hon. Member for Honiton said. It is not always necessary to have a guillotine motion, even on important issues. The vital Education Act 1944 has already been referred to. That legislation was debated in Committee for 60 hours and then progressed to its subsequent stages without any need for a guillotine.
The important point is that there is a huge difference between the 1944 Act and this Bill. There had been considerable and detailed consultation for a long period in the run-up to the preparation for the 1944 Act. As a result, there was great consensus on both sides of the House. The only area of major disagreement related to religious education.
There has been no extensive debate of this Bill. Many of us have often levelled that criticism at the Bill. There is definitely no consensus on both sides of the House in respect of the Bill. As a result, we are in difficulty. Quite properly, we must oppose the guillotine motion.
The hon. Member for Honiton referred to the debate in the House in the mid-1980s—long before I became a Member of this place—about guillotine and timetable motions, and the need to find a better way to address such business in the House. Speaking personally, I believe that there is great merit in the proposals in the report that was debated in 1986. In broad terms, my agreement stretches as far as major Bills which are contentious. The proposal that a timetable should be established before the Bill goes into Committee has a great deal of merit.
We must not have some of the perhaps synthetic crocodile tears about guillotine motions. After all, Governments of all persuasions have used guillotine motions. Certainly this Government, since they came to power in 1979, have introduced about 30 major Bills on which the Committee debate has been guillotined. On those occasions, it is interesting to note that the average time for debate before the guillotine was 78 hours, which is much more than the 55¼hours of debate that we have had on this lengthy Bill. Nevertheless, I accept that in principle there can be a case for timetable motions.
However, I do not believe that this timetable motion is justified. The outrage sometimes expressed about timetable motions is justified on this occasion. I hope that I do not repeat comments by other hon. Members, but there are several reasons why we should genuinely be outraged about the motion. One is purely selfish and personal—simply that I have enjoyed the deliberations in Committee. I have certainly learnt a great deal from them. [Laughter.] Those hon. Members who are laughing are clearly not members of the Committee.
Who can forget the Minister's wonderful joke when he described the Bill as "a landmark cake"? Who can forget the great erudition of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), who has taught us so much about grammar and pronunciation? I am sure that we have all learnt a great deal.
I for one am sad that the debate will come to an end relatively rapidly. Earlier, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, whom we have already welcomed to his position, said that he was concerned about his inability to speak so fluently and so on as he might like. I assure him


that, after a few days in Committee listening to the hon. Member for Hemsworth and many other hon. Members, he will be rapidly up to speed with his Front-Bench colleagues.

Mr. John Bowis: As the hon. Gentleman is referring to our good friend and entertainer, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), who has entertained us at great length, he will recall the occasion when the hon. Gentleman announced that he was coming to his peroration which, because he was a supporter of Demosthenes, was likely to last two hours. That is the problem that we have had in Committee: we have not had time to discuss the amendments that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have tabled, because many hon. Members have talked ad nauseam—with great respect to the hon. Gentleman: "nausea" was another Latin tag. [Interruption.] I think that Frankie Howard was a friend of the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice).
As an example, the hon. Gentleman will recall, because he was in Committee this morning, that we spent the entire sitting on one amendment to one clause, and did not even reach the end of that.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) will recall the intervention that he referred to in which the hon. Member for Hemsworth threatened to speak for two hours. Fortunately, that did not happen. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is smarting because of the interventions from the hon. Member for Hemsworth. Perhaps he will recall the interesting debate that we had on the phrases which introduced clause 1(1) of the Bill. I have no doubt that he will have an opportunity to check that point in the debate.
As I have said, there are several reasons for feeling outraged about the guillotine motion. I have referred to that reason which is perhaps personal and somewhat selfish, although there are many others which are much more important. The basic reason is the issue of the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. The motion will not give us an opportunity for the proper and detailed parliamentary scrutiny which a Bill of this size and importance rightly deserves. There is no opportunity for us to scrutinise, criticise and improve the actions of the Executive—which, after all, is what the role of the legislature is meant to be. Just as the Government have made a mockery of consultation on the Bill, so they are making a mockery of the concept of parliamentary rule.
The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) referred to the unwillingness of the Secretary of State to listen to almost anybody. It is clear that the Government have no desire to listen. They do not want to listen to parents, governors, teachers or any other educationists. Indeed, they do not want to listen to their own supporters. They seem to be totally deaf to many people who are traditional Conservative supporters. There were many references in Committee to the Conservative Education Association.
The Government also seem unwilling to listen to the views of the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education. He is quoted as describing the Bill as
a recipe for at best confusion and at worst chaos".
I wanted to record that phrase because of the effect that it might have on the Under-Secretary. Recently in

Committee he said that, if he heard that phrase once more, he would go even more dotty than he was, so we look forward to seeing how he behaves a little later.
I am sad that, because of the speed with which the Government are rushing the Bill through, Conservative Members have not had an opportunity to listen to the views of the new Minister about the important issues in the Bill.
Reference has been made to the fact that we do not appear to have made much progress on the Bill. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) said that there had been slow progress. That is perfectly understandable, because the Government have placed all the important and complex issues in the early part of the Bill. I propose that we resolve the problem by changing the order in which we consider the Bill.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that one of the main reasons for slow progress—if I may refer to one of the speeches made by the hon. Member for Hemsworth—is that he managed to introduce into a debate on the 10 per cent. and 75 per cent. trigger points topics such as the history of old school boards, the ethos of schools in West Yorkshire and Severn, how he crossed swords with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sheffield, star-gazing, "Pilgrim's Progress" and the Slough of Despond.

Mr. Foster: All those issues are vital to education. More importantly, I am amazed that the hon. Member for Norwich, North has admitted that he is attacking the integrity of the Chair. Surely, if the points were out of order, the Chairman would have so ruled, just as I am sure you would have done, Mr. Morris.

Mr. Derek Enright: I merely wish to make a correction. Undoubtedly, not all Conservative Members have learnt to read accurately. It was the Bishop, not the Archbishop, of Sheffield.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful for that clarification. Nevertheless, the point is important.
To pick up part of the point raised by the hon. Member for Honiton, if there had been an opportunity to plan the debate properly in the way I proposed at the beginning of the Committee's discussions, perhaps we would not have got into the state which the hon. Member for Norwich, North and other hon. Members believe we are in at present.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Despite what the hon. Gentleman said about reorganising the order of the debate, is he aware that, along the Committee Corridor, other Bills were being discussed, some of which had no more than 15 clauses? One which had 15 clauses has just completed its Committee stage today. To reach clause 15 of a long Bill such as this is good progress. [Laughter.]

Mr. Foster: It is clear that Conservative Members believe that the detailed consideration that has been given to the important clauses with which we have dealt merits only laughter. Opposition Members have made a serious attempt to find ways of improving a very bad Bill. That is demonstrated by the fact that we have not only debated the clauses of the Bill but tabled amendment after amendment to impove them.
The only accusation about a particular clause was in respect of clause 4. Reference was made to the fact that the


Opposition had not tabled any amendment to clause 4. That is hardly surprising when one discovers that clause 4 says:
The Secretary of State may make grants to any funding authority of such amounts and subject to such terms and conditions as he may determine.
It would be difficult to table an amendment which was acceptable to the Committee Clerk but would not be seen as a wrecking amendment and therefore rejected. That is the only way—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Decisions on amendments rest with not the Committee Clerk but with the Chairman of the Committee.

Mr. Foster: I apologise, and I am grateful for that comment.

Mr. Patten: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has learnt his lesson.

Mr. Foster: I have learnt, and I am grateful to learn. I said that I would undoubtedly learn a great deal in Committee.
Our other problem with the timetable motion is that it does not give the Government time to get their act together. Hon. Members who are not members of the Committee will not be aware that we had the somewhat unedifying sight of Ministers competing with one another to explain different parts of the Bill and coming up with contradictory views of what was going on.
For example, we had a major debate on clause 7, about the relationship between the local education authorities and the funding authorities. Every time Ministers attempted to explain the difference we received different answers. We wanted to know whether they had a dual function, whether they would operate in parallel or whether their responsibilities would be shared. For days we waited. Finally, we received an answer. The Minister said:
there is a shared responsibility exercised by parallel duties." —[Official Report, Standing Committee E; c. 517.]
We were told that that was the Government's definitive answer. I wonder whether it will be changed, because that definition is at odds with the definition given by the Secretary of State on Second Reading.
We have many other examples of Ministers being at odds. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
Grant-maintained schools and local education authority schools must operate on equal terms."—[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 651.]
In the second day of the same debate, the junior Minister said:
There can never be a level playing field between grant-maintained schools and local education authority maintained schools".—[Official Report, 10 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 836.]

Mr. George Walden: I should be grateful to know whether the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's speech is to illustrate the farcical nature of the proceedings, as so well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery).

Mr. Foster: The point of my speech is to show that inadequate time has been given for consideration of what the Government have said is an important Bill. It is to demonstrate that the Government have not got their act together and are still making contradictory statements

about elements of the Bill. Even if no one else needs additional time to get the Bill right, the. Government certainly do.
I also wish to show that the Government are clearly not interested in rational debate. They are interested only in rationed debate.

Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to the kernel of the debate. Several days were spent discussing what my hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee—that local education authorities and the funding agencies would work in parallel. I recall the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who unfortunately has now left the Chamber, spending some considerable time discussing the matter. He told us at length that he was a mathematics teacher, so he assumed, as Opposition Members do, that he must relate everything that happened in the Committee to his specialisation. He spent some time telling us how parallel lines never meet or get closer.
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, when my hon. Friend said that the two bodies would operate in parallel, he might no Opposition Members thought of this have been talking about an electrical circuit. Two bulbs might be connected in parallel and burn equally brightly. Socialists seem to believe that everything must be connected in series.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is performing brilliantly, but out of order, I fear.

Mr. Foster: I am most grateful for that intervention from the hon. Gentleman. You may be interested to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that was the longest contribution that the hon. Gentleman has made on the Bill. As a former physics teacher, I was particularly interested in his analogy. He will know that two bulbs in parallel are such that, if one is taken out, the other continues to burn. Many of us would like to take out the funding authority and leave the local education authorities.

Mr. Richards: The point that I wished to make is that socialists insist on connecting things up in series. As one adds things in series, so they get dimmer. As one adds socialists, so one gets dimmer and dimmer.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman still fails to grasp that the Government wish to add something. It is not the wish of the Opposition to add something to the system.
The interventions from the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) and others show that they are not interested in the serious debate that the Bill truly deserves. There is an urgent need for more detailed consideration than the timetable motion will allow. The Secretary of State is showing unseemly haste to get his hands on the new powers which the Bill will give him. As we all know, it confers significant additional powers on the Secretary of State.
I am well aware that the Secretary of State is a regular reader of the Catholic journal The Tablet. It is a pity that he has not taken notice of a letter in that journal of August this year, which says:
The Secretary of State for Education now has powers —over the opening and closing of schools, over what should be taught within them, over the information that should be published and by whom it should be published, over how the schools should be funded, over admission policies and over specialisation (a euphemism for election)—which are probably unprecedented in the Western world. All this is


proclaimed under the banner of choice. Given the distinctive role that the Church has played in the development of education in this country, Catholics should be alarmed by what is happening.
That is the nub of the matter. We should all be alarmed by the Bill and by what it contains. The Government have been in power too long they have begun to—[Interruption.] I am grateful for the Minister's seated intervention.
The Government have failed to remember the importance of listening to the electorate and to the views of people with knowledge of the various issues. They have not been willing to listen. I hope that we shall oppose the guillotine motion and accept the amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) so that we can continue the debate on a vitally important issue.

Mr. James Pawsey: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) earlier accused me of quoting from a Conservative central office brief. I now have the information to hand. She may be pleased to know that I was referring to a letter sent to me by the home affairs section of the House of Commons Library, which reads:
"Dear Mr. Pawsey,
Guillotine
You put two questions to me on the use of the guillotine. The answers are as follows:
It is true that Michael Foot, as Leader of the House, set a record by guillotining 5 Bills in one day, 20 July 1976. They were the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the Dock Work Regulation Bill, the Health Services Bill, the Rent (Agriculture) Bill, and the Education Bill. The guillotine was applied to the report and third reading stages except in the case of the Health Services Bill where the committee stage was also guillotined after 18 sittings. The others had had, respectively, 58, 36, 12 and 35 committee sittings. All 5 Bills were subsequently guillotined for Lords amendments, again all on the same day, 8 November 1976. The decision to guillotine so many Bills in one day aroused considerable annoyance and, in particular, the groupings of the Bills into 3 rather than 5 separate motions was challenged. The Speaker, however, ruled that this was in order.
I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I remind her that the brief came from the same source as hers—from the House of Commons Library.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming the information that I gave to the House. He obviously did not read his brief carefully. As I said, a Labour Government have never guillotined the Committee stage of an Education Bill.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Lady said, presumably with some form of defective second sight, that I was using a central office brief, but it came from exactly the same source as hers, from the Library.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that central office briefs are simply not worth quoting.

Mr. Pawsey: Central office briefs are always precise, accurate and to the point, unlike those that Opposition Members receive from their sources.
If a justification for the Bill were required it could be found in the fact that, although Standing Committee E sat for about 65½hours, we have so far only reached clause 15.
I suspect that the hon. Member for Dewsbury was in the House in 1976 when that guillotine was in motion. She is protesting about the use of a guillotine on one Bill, when five Bills were guillotined—[interruption.] As I am reminded by my hon. Friends, she voted for them. The hon. Lady is not the great democrat that she pretends to be.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Pawsey: Opposition Members are queuing to intervene. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman whose name always reminds me of the Catholic church.

Mr. Greg Pope: As the hon. Gentleman clearly has the information, can he inform the House how many sittings there had been on the Education Bill in 1976 when it was guillotined, so that we may compare it with the number of sittings on this Bill?

Mr. Pawsey: As it happens, I can provide the hon. Gentleman with that information. Again I am quoting from the letter to me from the House of Commons Library —in order that there be no misunderstanding about the source—which states:
You also asked for how many hours the Education Bill of that session had been debated before it was guillotined. As mentioned above the Bill was considered at 35 standing committee sittings and according to Burton and Drewry these were 'spun out to 86 hours'".
The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Bill received two days consideration at Second Reading and that it will receive two days on Report. As far as I know, that is unprecedented. I have no knowledge of any Education Bill receiving that amount of time on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pawsey: I shall give way and then all three Opposition Front-Bench Members will have intervened in my speech, even though I have only reached the first paragraph.

Mr. Griffiths: That merely shows how controversial the speech is. First, may I point out that the Education Bill that the hon. Gentleman seeks to malign us with was only 10 clauses long, whereas this Bill has 255 clauses? He and I served on the Committee of the great Education Reform Act 1988, which had three-day Report and Third Reading stages. That is what our amendment seeks and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support it as he did on that previous occasion.

Mr. Pawsey: That merely shows my independence of mind.
I must continue with my speech, as I know that Conservative Members want the opportunity to address the Chair on what we consider to be a genuinely important matter.
In the view of my hon. Friends, the Bill will do much to enhance the quality and standard of state education. For that reason, we want it to be enacted as soon as possible. However, our enthusiasm, our sense of urgency, is not shared by Opposition Members. We want the maximum number of the nation's children to benefit as soon as possible from the measures proposed in the Bill.
As a sign of the delaying tactics employed by Opposition Members, on 1,3,and 8 December we devoted 17 hours and 43 minutes to the discussion of clause 7. There are 255 clauses in the Bill, and if each were debated for that length of time, the Committee would need to spend 4,157 hours and 45 minutes debating the Bill in Committee.
I am certain that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker will find that figure as incredible and as intolerable as I do. Incidentally, the figure that I quoted does not include time to debate the schedules.

Ms. Estelle Morris: rose —

Mr. Pawsey: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I have given way several times and I know that many Conservative Members wish to speak.
We have been reminded that the Second Reading lasted about 11 hours and 51 minutes over two days.
I have referred to the fact that timetable motions are not new to the House. I do not believe that Conservative Members need to take any lectures from Opposition Members about guillotines, democracy, or even the scrutiny of Bills.
Some of our debates have been genuinely illuminating. For example, on 1 December we discussed the implications of the Bill for various sections of the Education Act 1944. I hope that in the timetable an opportunity will be found to re-examine those sections of the 1944 Act that gave local education authorities a senior role in the provision of education. That role will change with the growth of the grant-maintained sector, as envisaged in the Bill.
The Bill promotes grant-maintained schools and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has come out so clearly in favour of them. He is right—such schools do much to enhance the quality and standard of state education. The Bill provides for a funding agency for grant-maintained schools and seeks to ensure that local education authorities do not stifle would-be grant-maintained schools under a mass of adverse propaganda. Conservative Members have argued for greater fairness and have long believed that some LEAs might be prejudiced against grant-maintained schools. We do not believe that the local education authority is the only vehicle able to deliver good education to the nation's children.
In Standing Committee, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) gave the game away. He used the word "hostile" to describe the attitude of some LEAs to the idea of grant-maintained schools. It became clear in Committee that he was not alone in that view. That declared hostility is one reason why it is necessary to introduce the Bill. Where LEAs are hostile to grant-maintained schools, that hostility must be curtailed and controlled.
I found it significant that Opposition Members could boast with pride that there were some LEAs in which no grant-maintained schools had emerged. I believe that that is due not so much to the excellence of the LEAs, as to the propaganda and intimidation waged against schools considering grant-maintained status.

Mr. Enright: rose—

Mr. Pawsey: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, but if the hon. Member for City of Durham wants to intervene, I shall give way.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was not going to intervene, as I hope to make a speech in the next few minutes, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman how he explains the fact that many local education authorities do not even contain a school that wants to ballot to leave the authority.

Mr. Pawsey: I can easily explain. That is because of the barrage'of black propaganda that has been waged against grant-maintained schools by people such as the hon. Gentleman and his Labour party friends.
I appreciate that not all the Committee's deliberations are studied by parents or members of the public. The Committee's deliberations have been long and sometimes, dare I say it, boring. I hasten to add that only the contributions of Opposition Members were boring. However, debates on the Floor of the Chamber attract substantial public attention. One hour spent debating on the Floor of the Chamber is so often worth dozens of hours in Committee Room 10 listening to the thoughts on meditation, puppy training and the diary extracts of a head teacher. We even heard some teachers described as flibbertigibbets—not by a Conservative Member. I am glad that the example of the Education Reform Act 1988 will be followed when we discuss the Bill on Report, and that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has found time for a two-day debate on the important Bill.
On Second Reading I asked the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) whether, if the Labour party were to be returned to office—an unlikely event—grant-maintained schools would be taken back into LEA control. The hon. Gentleman said that he would respond the next day. I have read his speech—hard work it was, too—but I could not find an unambiguous statement on that important issue. Therefore, I repeat the challenge: if the Labour party were to be returned to office in some far distant future Parliament, would grant-maintained schools once more be part of LEAs?

Mr. Win Griffiths: What I said in Committee was very clear. I suggest that we look at the speech together and, if the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied, I shall later make a statement on which we can both agree.

Mr. Pawsey: As the hon. Gentleman has asked me a direct question, I can tell him that I am not satisfied with his reply. I read his speech, which did not contain an unambiguous statement on grant-maintained schools. I have given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to answer from the Dispatch Box the question that I have once again asked him, and again he has fudged the answer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is on the timetable motion. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will relate his comments to it, but it is not immediately clear to me how he proposes to do so.

Mr. Pawsey: I think that I have made my point absolutely clear.
Conservative Members want the Bill to be enacted. There have been about 72 hours debate in Committee and on the Floor of the House, during which time we have covered only a modest number of clauses. We believe that honest discussion has become deliberate obstruction. Therefore, I support the motion and urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to do the same.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: I oppose the imposition of the guillotine on this Bill, as I believe that the Secretary of State has shown an inconsistency of purpose. He presented the White Paper and the Bill as a coping stone of 10 or so years of Conservative legislation on education—a blueprint for the 21st century. To do that and then seek to stifle debate on this important Bill reveals his inconsistency. It would surely be more consistent for him to allow debate commensurate with the importance of the matters contained in the Bill.
The only consistency that I can see relates to the practice rather than the purpose of the Secretary of State in trying to impose the guillotine after a cursory consultation process on a White Paper that was published at the end of July, modified and presented, almost as a Bill, at the end of October.
I shall confine my remarks to three important issues in the Bill that need more discussion than will be allowed if debate is stifled by the guillotine: first, clauses 169 to 179, which refer to school attendance; secondly, the inadequate treatment given to provision for special needs; thirdly, the many sections of the Bill relating to its main purpose—opting out.
Clauses 169 to 179 refer to the important issue of school attendance, but will not be given adequate debate if the Bill is guillotined. School attendance is mentioned in a key passage of the White Paper, at paragraph 1.22, which states:
There is little point in having good, regularly inspected schools,
first-rate teachers, a national curriculum that is well taught and assessed, if all our children do not attend school, remain there and learn throughout the school day. Last year I had the privilege of addressing the Association of Chief Educational Social Workers, so I was interested to see in the White Paper the hearty endorsement of the work of educational social workers, who share a common concern with the Secretary of State.
However, when I discussed that important subject with members of the association, I found them cautious about the new registration requirements imposed on schools. They felt that those requirements could lead to excessive use of unauthorised absence. They offered some interesting suggestions for the Secretary of State to consider genuinely to improve school attendance, instead of cooking the books to suit the league tables of school attendance. I feel saddened that an issue described in the White Paper as being so important should not be adequately discussed merely because of the guillotine.
In one of the most noted passages in the White Paper the Secretary of State suggested that parents know best the needs of their children. But clauses 169 to 179 give the lie to such a fatuous suggestion; they are all about parents who do not know what is best for their children.
As for special educational needs, I know that Ministers will boast of examples of good practice in such provision in grant-maintained schools—I have heard them do so. That does not alter the fact that the Bill provides no mechanism to protect SEN provision in schools that opt out. It is irresponsible of the Secretary of State to engineer a situation in which discussion of such an important issue cannot go on. It is bad enough under the present system of

delegated budgets—local management of schools, under which funding is devolved and there is no control over schools' spending.
I shall draw my examples from provision for the hearing impaired, a handicap in which I take a close interest. For instance, a school with eight children who were hearing-impaired was given a slice of budget which the headmistress did not feel justified in spending on so few children—it came to several thousand pounds. It was intended to be used to buy eight radio hearing aids, quite expensive items. Instead, the headmistress chose to buy a perimeter fence and some benches.
Another school with a hearing-impaired unit found that the relevant teacher left and was not replaced, so parents who had placed their children in the school on the understanding that they would be provided for were no longer guaranteed that provision.
Things are even worse under the grant-maintained system, and we should of course be given time adequately to discuss them. Under the GM system, a chunk of funding earmarked for special needs by an LEA is allocated to a GM school. Hearing impairment is a low-incidence handicap which is expensive to service. Schools find it extremely difficult to pay for it, and even if they could, they would not necessarily know what resources to provide without the expertise of the LEA.
I know that the latest missive from the Secretary of State to school governors—it is undated, but I received my copy last Friday—offers an assurance that GM schools may still purchase special provision of various kinds, including provision for hearing-impaired children, from the local education authority. But how can the LEA provide that if its resource base is chipped away, opt-out by opt-out? This issue was discussed in Committee, but we have as yet received no satisfactory answers.
I have described the process of privatisation, fragmentation and diminution of service. A Conservative Member has referred to a system of provision connected in series in ever smaller fragments, becoming dimmer and more diluted as the series progresses. How, then, is parental choice to be guaranteed, especially if provision for children's special needs is so expensive? A child's statement may refer to such provision, but neither parent nor child will have any range of choice. It is irresponsible and reprehensible not to allow enough time adequately to examine matters of that sort.
My main anxiety is about the new procedures in the Bill to speed up the process of opting out and to rig the system in favour of those in a school who want to trigger an opt-out ballot. It is cavalier of the Secretary of State to rush into this before he has published evidence that GM schools deliver a higher quality of education. The evidence has not yet been forthcoming, and the case needs closer examination.
Even on the right hon. Gentleman's distorted and narrow criteria—I suppose that they equate to crooked criteria—of publishing tables of five 0–level results, graded A to C by year groups, one would not be surprised to find that GM schools score higher than the 98.5 per cent. of schools which have not opted out. Twenty-five per cent. of GM schools, after all, are selective, compared with only 5 per cent. in the system generally.
A published list of 200 schools in the Merseyside and Cheshire area shows that selective schools cluster near the top of the league table. That is not surprising; those schools select their intake on the basis of pupils' likely


aptitude for the examinations to which the league tables are confined. It is not surprising, either, to find that the non-selective schools cluster near the bottom of the 200, because they do not select their intake according to these criteria.
Her Majesty's inspectorate has inspected a representative sample of GM schools, so the Secretary of State has the necessary information. Why not publish it before rushing this important legislation through the House?
My greatest anxiety is directed at what can happen if the Secretary of State rigs the opt-out process in favour of those who support opting out. I refer to recent events in my constituency and to the opt-out ballot at Thomas Becket school in Knowsley. I am pleased to say that the first two attempts to opt out of Knowsley LEA were resoundingly rebuffed: at Ruffwood school by 97 per cent. —still a record opt-out rejection—and at Prescot school—I was chairman of the board of governors for 15 years there—by 67 per cent., or more than two to one. Now it is the turn of Thomas Becket in Huyton. I am confident that the parents at that school will match the good sense shown by the parents of children at the other two.

Mr. Nigel Evans: By 1995, more than 1 million parents will have children in grant-maintained schools—[Interruption.]—on current trends. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, come the next general election, he will tell those parents that their children will no longer be educated at grant-maintained schools because they will be taken over by the local education authority?

Mr. O'Hara: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted to answer that question. It has little to do with the guillotine.

Mr. O'Hara: I do not, anyway, accept the assumption that the question makes—and neither, I understand, does the Secretary of State.
What appals me, having spoken to the parents of children at Thomas Becket, is the way that the head teacher and staff at that school have drawn the children into the issue—I would not dignify the description "debate". It is hardly an overstatement to talk of indoctrination and certainly of emotional blackmail. Children have been addressed in assembly and further harassed by teachers, with tales that, unless the school opts out, specific teachers will be sacked and specific pupils will not be able to complete specific O and A-level courses. I use the word "harassed". I heard of one teacher pointing to a pupil in the corridor and saying—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That equally has nothing to do with the guillotine. The hon. Gentleman was keeping in order, but he is now drifting out of order.

Mr. O'Hara: I could give further examples, but I shall not do so, of attempts to stifle debate on an opt-out ballot by a particular school in my constituency. Likewise, the Secretary of State is trying to stifle debate on the opting-out processes in the Bill.
In my opening remarks, I referred to the indecent haste with which the Bill appeared, in stark contrast to the stature claimed for it. I allowed myself a wry smile when the Secretary of State, after a small number of weeks in purdah, emerged with his so-called blockbuster White Paper, which has become a Christmas cake of a Bill. I was

reminded of the poet Horace. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not in his place, because I would have addressed him as a scholar. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) will listen carefully.
Boasting of one of his literary productions, Horace observed:
Exegi monumentum aere perennius"—
that is to say,
I have wrought a monument more lasting than bronze.
However, Horace also said that when one has produced something, one should put it away and suppress it for nine full years—
Membranis intus positis: delere licebit".
If the Secretary of State was not prepared to allow his White Paper to mature in the wood of consultation, he ought to allow the Bill to mature in the wood of full and proper debate in the House.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Having witnessed 65 hours of self-indulgent humbug and virtual incessant verbal incontinence from Opposition Members, and having served on the Standing Committees of three major education Bills, I cannot think of a more appropriate motion than the one before the House.
The situation was exemplified by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—sadly, he is not in his place—who, after 26 minutes speaking tonight, said that he was just coming to the nub of his argument. If any of our constituents saw the shenanigans involved in dealing with such an important Bill for the past two months, they would be appalled.
The Committee debated 15 clauses in 65 hours. There are another 240 to go—and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) said, "I think that is good progress." At that rate, we will not complete the Committee stage for another two years, and the Bill would reach the statute book some time early in the next millennium, if we were lucky.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's definition of progress. Does he measure progress as getting through the clauses or, as my right hon. and hon. Friends do, by the number of amendments that we persuade Ministers to accept?

Mr. Coombs: I measure progress by the proper and rational scrutiny of the Bill's important clauses. According to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), the Opposition, without any self-criticism but with pure cynicism, have filibustered an important educational measure. I find that quite reprehensible. The Committee took a whole morning to consider the sittings motion. Even then, the Opposition did not want to meet in the afternoons. The kind of timetable I gave would have been made twice as worse.

Mr. Mike Hall: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that, in the sittings debate, Conservative Members said that they would like a flexible approach to be taken? There has been 65 hours of debate and now a guillotine is being imposed. Is that flexibility?

Mr. Coombs: I suspect that the majority of my constituents would resoundingly answer, "Yes." Three and one quarter hours were spent on clause 4 without amendment. We saw Opposition Members, obviously


organised by their Whip, queuing up—in some cases, rather reluctantly—to give us the sparse edge of their views on this important measure. It has not been an exercise in discussion or democracy, but a deliberate exercise in frustration by Opposition Members.
Clem Attlee said:
Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking.
Trying to get that Duracell lot to stop talking is quite something. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) actually accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of being unwilling to defend his own Bill. When my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth)—the Minister in charge of the Bill and I held a public meeting in my constituency, we were condemned in an Opposition early-day motion for doing so—[Interruption.] Suddenly, we hear that the hon. Member for Wallsend did not append his signature to that particular motion. I am sure that he did not.
This is a classic example of the kind of procrastination that arises when there is no agenda or guidelines as to how discussion ought to proceed. I would not mind if it were just a question of wasting parliamentary time—albeit that parliamentary time is paid for by the taxpayer. I am concerned, however, that the longer that we debate the Bill, the less time educational institutions—whether they be grant-maintained schools or local education authorities —will have to plan for the inevitably changing relationship between schools and LEAs over the next few years.
Some dinosaur-like Opposition Members and those in district councils in particular will say, "We do not want any change in the relationship between local education authorities and schools." On 13 November—a Friday, appropriately enough—The Times Educational Supplement reported that the so-called intelligent vice-chairman of Birmingham's educational authority said of his planned relationship between that LEA, which is the biggest in the country, and the funding agency:
Let the bastards sack us.
That is his idea of the kind of co-operation that is necessary to maintain proper education standards for all our children.
Fortunately, local education authorities—both Labour and Conservative—take a more constructive view. There is no doubt that many will want to amalgamate their education committees with leisure committees or child services committees—as some are already doing—recognising that the future role of local education authorities will be enabling rather than merely executive, as it has been over the past few years. The longer that the House debates in a futile way, the less we provide such bodies with a framework that allows them to plan for the future.
However, my main objection to the disgraceful way in which the Bill is being discussed—or, rather, not discussed —relates to its direct impact on some of the measures that we should take to improve education standards for children in failing schools. One of the Bill's most important aspects is the way in which it deals with education associations. Such associations will go into schools that are plainly failing; we know where many of those schools are, and we know that local education authorities are not taking enough action against them to assist their improvement and, as a result, to improve the education of children.
Whenever I discuss education matters, I remember something that I have always kept in my mind: children go that way but once. They do not have a second chance. If we get things wrong in a failing school, a child's life will be blighted. Even if there is only one class in one school whose teacher is not using maximum potential and giving a child the education that he needs, that is one class too many. The House of Commons cannot procrastinate and allow that to happen.
We have already heard of schools in the same authority, one of which is—according to one measure—far more deprived than another, but obtains significantly better results. That is because such schools have a sense of direction: teachers will have high expectations—that always comes out in HMI reports—and there will be an appropriate differentiation in the kind of education that is offered, according to the ability of individual pupils. All too often, in certain schools that are under-performing, that reveals a performance gap.
As I pointed out in Committee, Professor Nuttall, a professor of curriculum at London university, said:
However, even when you take account of the value added, there are still…substantial differences between schools. We have got to close the performance gap.
One way in which to close that gap is to allow education associations to visit schools that are failing their pupils.
What is Labour's reaction to all that? Labour Members continue to make excuses and to talk about funding. They condescend to parents who have not much money, and who want their children to succeed; they do everything to protect the producer interests with which they have been identified too often in the past. Anyone who wants to see an example of that need only read an extract from a report produced by—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that that is relevant to the motion.

Mr. Coombs: I was merely seeking to point out the urgency of passing some measures in the Bill to improve children's education.
The Socialist Education Association said:
Gramski's vision is correct—if you want the revolution to succeed you must teach the peasants to read and write".
Can hon. Members imagine any more condescending and disgraceful statement? The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), and a number of his hon. Friends, claim to be proud to be members of that association. That, I think, emphasises the Labour party's appalling attitude to consideration of the Bill, and that is why I think that we should pass the guillotine motion with alacrity.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I believe that it was always the Government's intention to table the guillotine motion at the earliest possible moment that, by their lights, was respectable. The Committee's second sitting was kept going until midnight, and the third until 2 am. Personally, I should not mind if we kept long hours every time we met, provided that that gave us an opportunity to discuss in full all the serious issues that are highlighted in the Bill.
The so-called great Education Reform Bill 1988—I had the pleasure, if the word can be used in such a context, of sitting on the Committee with a number of Conservative Members—was debated for 88 hours before the imposition of a guillotine. Moreover, on Report and Third Reading the timetable motion allowed three days for


debate. Our amendment seeks to put the Bill on a par with the "GERBIL". We believe that, as this Bill has far more clauses and deals with many important and diverse matters in relation to schools, the Government could at the very least ameliorate the damage that is being done to its consideration by allowing a three-day debate on Report.
Some of us recall the debates in 1987 and 1988, and the forecasts that the Education Reform Bill would set a pattern for the next generation. It is salutary to reflect that, after only four years, the Government have had to bring in "son of GERBIL" to correct all the shortcomings that they now see in the original.
Some Conservative Members have made much of the time spent on the first 15 clauses of this Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) pointed out —along with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—the first part of the Bill lays the foundations of a completely new structure for education funding. The point between the Secretary of State and the school—which at one time was filled by the democratically elected local education authority—will pass to an unelected, undemocratic, non-accountable body appointed by the Secretary of State, which will work to rules laid down by him. We thought it only right to request a detailed scrutiny of the first 15 clauses: those relating to the Funding Agency for Schools in England and the Funding Council for Schools in Wales.
We have been labouring under a considerable difficulty, which has been identified by my hon. Friends the Members for Wallsend and for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). We have debated fundamental issues relating to funding and the exclusion of pupils from schools, without the benefit of consultation papers that the Government say they will announce shortly. We have had to discuss important matters without even knowing the Government's own thoughts. These, after all, are serious problems.
Hon. Members have referred to the length of time taken to debate amendment No. 235, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). The amendment was as important as the clauses that introduce the funding agencies. My hon. Friend sought to define the way in which the funding agency would operate and what duties would be placed on schools to make reasonable provision for books and equipment and to ensure that class sizes were reasonable. Such fundamental responsibilities were worthy of a full debate.
One of the suggestions that have been bandied about is that, if we continue to consider the Bill at the present rate, it will require another 1,500 hours to complete its Committee stage. Everybody knows that that is a tendentious use of statistics, but if there had been a reasonable attempt to discuss the Bill, I am sure that we could have reached agreement on considering it at sufficient length and within a time scale that would have satisfied the Government.

Mr. James Clappison: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his scrutiny of the Bill so far has been unreasonable, because it sounds like it?

Mr. Griffiths: I am not saying that scrutiny of the Bill has been unreasonable. I am saying that to conclude from our scrutiny so far that the remaining clauses will be taken at the same speed is a spurious use of an argument for the sake of a motion that is unnecessary.

Mr. Clappison: rose—

Mr. Griffiths: I shall continue, because the debate is subject to a guillotine, and I have dealt with the point accurately.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) referred to the considerable time that we spent on clause 7, which the Tory-controlled Association of County Councils believes raises significant constitutional implications. We took its warning seriously and considered all aspects of the clause.
Part II of the Bill will be controversial, and we should have wanted to spend time considering it. Given the conciliatory and helpful attitude of the Minister in accepting two important amendments about children with special needs, we could have reached agreement on the amendments that are necessary to improve part III.
We suggested the amalgamation of the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council in the Education Reform Bill, yet the Government insisted on establishing two separate bodies. I am sure that we could have reached agreement on that. If what the Minister told the Association of Metropolitan Authorities yesterday was representative of his approach, we could have reached agreement on reasoned amendments to that part of the Bill. Again, I am sure that we could have reached agreement on amendments to improve school attendance.
In short, there could have been a reasonable approach to the non-controversial parts of the Bill where the Minister has shown that he is willing to reach agreement, but we had no chance to reach such agreement. As a final appeal, I hope that he will accept our amendment and let us know when the exclusions consultation paper and the paper on the formula funding for GMS schools will be issued. If he does so, despite some of the acrimony in the debate, we might be able to leave the Chamber happy this evening.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): As hon. Members well know, these occasions, which occur from time to time, are part ritual and part humbug. We have had plenty of both tonight.
Hon. Members who have sat for hours in Committee can characterise the flavour of the debate well because this has been a mirror image of what has taken place for the best part of about 60 hours upstairs. I characterise it best by quoting the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who took 26 minutes of our time to say, most memorably, "I quite enjoyed the proceedings of the Committee and learned a lot from it." He certain has a lot to learn, but why he should be doing it at the expense of the Committee is beyond me.
I suppose that that sums up resonably well why we find ourselves in this position. The hon. Gentleman went on to ask—helpfully, I thought—"Why do not we plan the debate properly"? Perhaps he has not noticed, but the purpose of the motion is to plan the debate properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) summed it up better than I could—but that is often the case—when he said that honest discussion had become deliberate obstruction. That was the burden of my hon. Friend's comments this evening, which were expressed with understandable frustration.
I can illustrate that point, if it needs illustrating, by pointing out that 70 times the Chairman of the Committee


has had to call Opposition Members to order for straying from the subject—for being out of order. That took place no fewer than eight times on the first sitting alone, when the Chairman had to say,
I hope that he will relate his remarks directly to the sittings motion",
and
Discussions about my past are not in order this morning.
That is the Chairman's past, not mine. He continued,
This is not in order."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 November 1992; c. 6–9.]
I could quote in extenso, but I will not. In the eighth sitting —I pick it simply at random—on another five occasions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I am afraid that I cannot see the hon. Gentleman's face. Will he address the Chair?

Mr. Forth: I am sorry. Moreover, I shall smile for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I speak.
The reality of the debate was mirrored in this morning's deliberations when, in Committee, as ever we are on a Tuesday, we spent nearly two and a half hours on one amendment to a clause but did not manage to dispose of it.
The importance of the Bill is agreed by all hon. Members, and at least half of its clauses are essentially re-enactments of previous statutes—a fact which we should bear well in mind. The proposed timetable motion, which I hope the House will support, allows nine more Committee days—more than we have already had—and 18 more sittings—more than we have already had—and up to 70 or more hours of debate. The proposal will allow us to ensure that all parts of the Bill are properly and adequately covered. That cannot be said of our debates up until now. We have spent more than 60 hours in Committee, covering only 14 or 15 clauses, yet the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) says, "Trust us and we shall allow proper progress to be made in future." That does not wash.
Having sat through all those hours with so little progress being made on the Bill, on what basis could we proceed? It is not good enough. Our duty is not only to the people who elected the Government, with their mandate based on the programme so clearly set out in April—and set out not only in the White Paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so elegantly wrote and introduced to us in July, but in the Bill. Our duty is also to make progress on the Bill in order to provide a proper framework for the growing grant-maintained schools sector.
If Opposition Members had shown an element of desire to make progress on the Bill earlier, we should not now be in this position. But we owe the House as a whole a rate of progress on the Bill; we owe the education world progess on it, so that people can see that each clause is being properly considered. We cannot allow the sort of frustration, obfuscation and dilatory tactics employed by Opposition Members. Those tactics have slowed the Bill down so much that my right hon. Friends have had to decide that in order to protect the business of the House and the business of the Government, in order to make proper progress with the Bill, we must put this reasonable,

realistic and positive timetable motion before the House. It allows more than adequate time and gives us the opportunity to sit down with the Opposition and discuss ways in which we may now proceed properly. I hope that we shall do that.
That has been done with all reasonableness—but the reasonableness has come only from the Government side of the House and of the Committee. We have allowed Opposition Members the maximum latitude, and they have failed us, they have failed the education world, and they have let everybody down, by wasting the time available and making so little progress on the Bill. We shall correct that with the timetable motion. If the House supports the motion, as I now ask it to do, we shall make proper progress on the Bill and be able to scrutinise it properly. The Bill will come out of Committee in better shape and the House will be able to proceed in proper order with its business. I ask the House to support the motion.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 290.

Division No. 102]
[7.11 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corston, Ms Jean


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cousins, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Cox, Tom


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cryer, Bob


Allen, Graham
Cummings, John


Alton, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Dafis, Cynog


Ashton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Harry
Darling, Alistair


Battle, John
Davidson, Ian


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Beggs, Roy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Denham, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dewar, Donald


Benton, Joe
Dixon, Don


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobson, Frank


Berry, Dr. Roger
Donohoe, Brian H.


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blair, Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Blunkett, David
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Boateng, Paul
Eagle, Ms Angela


Boyce, Jimmy
Eastham, Ken


Bradley, Keith
Enright, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Etherington, Bill


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Faulds, Andrew


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Burden, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Byers, Stephen
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Callaghan, Jim
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Galloway, George


Canavan, Dennis
Gapes, Mike


Cann, Jamie
Garrett, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gerrard, Neil


Clapham, Michael
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Godsiff, Roger


Clelland, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gordon, Mildred


Coffey, Ann
Graham, Thomas


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Grocott, Bruce


Corbett, Robin
Hain, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hall, Mike






Hanson, David
Mudie, George


Hardy, Peter
Mullin, Chris


Harman, Ms Harriet
Murphy, Paul


Harvey, Nick
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Heppell, John
O'Hara, Edward


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Olner, William


Hinchliffe, David
O'Neill, Martin


Hoey, Kate
Parry, Robert


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Patchett, Terry


Home Robertson, John
Pendry, Tom


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pike, Peter L.


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pope, Greg


Hoyle, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hutton, John
Purchase, Ken


Ingram, Adam
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Radice, Giles


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Randall, Stuart


Jamieson, David
Raynsford, Nick


Janner, Greville
Reid, Dr John


Johnston, Sir Russell
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rowlands, Ted


Jowell, Tessa
Ruddock, Joan


Keen, Alan
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Sheerman, Barry


Khabra, Piara S.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kilfoyle, Peter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Short, Clare


Leighton, Ron
Simpson, Alan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Loyden, Eddie
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Snape, Peter


McAllion, John
Soley, Clive


McAvoy, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


Macdonald, Calum
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McFall, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McKelvey, William
Steinberg, Gerry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stevenson, George


McLeish, Henry
Stott, Roger


McMaster, Gordon
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McWilliam, John
Straw, Jack


Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mahon, Alice
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mandelson, Peter
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marek, Dr John
Tipping, Paddy


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Trimble, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Turner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Tyler, Paul


Maxton, John
Vaz, Keith


Meacher, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Meale, Alan
Wallace, James


Michael, Alun
Walley, Joan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Wareing, Robert N


Milburn, Alan
Watson, Mike


Miller, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wigley, Dafydd


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morley, Elliot
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Winnick, David


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wise, Audrey


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Worthington, Tony


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wray, Jimmy





Wright, Dr Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr.Eric Illsley and



Mr.Jon Owen Jones.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Duncan, Alan


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Bob


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dykes, Hugh


Amess, David
Eggar, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Elletson, Harold


Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ashby, David
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkins, Robert
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evennett, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Faber, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fabricant, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bates, Michael
Fishburn, Dudley


Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Body, Sir Richard
Freeman, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Booth, Hartley
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garnier, Edward


Bowden, Andrew
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butler, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Nick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawksley, Warren


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Churchill, Mr
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hicks, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kilfedder, Sir James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy






Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sackville, Tom


Knox, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Legg, Barry
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lidington, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lightbown, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spink, Dr Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sproat, Iain


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Madel, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stephen, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan


Marlow, Tony
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sumberg, David


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sweeney, Walter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sykes, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Milligan, Stephen
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thomason, Roy


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Needham, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tredinnick, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trend, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walden, George


Ottaway, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Page, Richard
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Irvine
Waterson, Nigel


Patten, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, Sir John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Ray


Pickles, Eric
Whittingdale, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wiggin, Jerry


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wilkinson, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Willetts, David


Rathbone, Tim
Wilshire, David


Redwood, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Richards, Rod
Wood, Timothy


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Robathan, Andrew
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn



Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Andrew MacKay.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 258.

Division No. 103]
7.27 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Duncan, Alan


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Bob


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Sir Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Eggar, Tim


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Elletson, Harold


Amess, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Ancram, Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Ashby, David
Evennett, David


Atkins, Robert
Faber, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Bates, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fry, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Body, Sir Richard
Gallie, Phil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bowden, Andrew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gorst, John


Brandreth, Gyles
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hague, William


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butcher, John
Hannam, Sir John


Butler, Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Cash, William
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Hendry, Charles


Churchill, Mr
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kilfedder, Sir James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy






Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sackville, Tom


Knox, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Legg, Barry
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lidington, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lightbown, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spink, Dr Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sproat, Iain


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Madel, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stephen, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sweeney, Walter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sykes, John


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Milligan, Stephen
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Roger
Thomason, Roy


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moss, Malcolm
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Needham, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tracey, Richard


Nicholls, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trend, Michael


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trotter, Neville


Norris, Steve
Twinn, Dr Ian


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Viggers, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Page, Richard
Walden, George


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Wells, Bowen


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wheeler, Sir John


Pickles, Eric
Whitney, Ray


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Whittingdale, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Ann


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Powell, William (Corby)
Wilkinson, John


Rathbone, Tim
Willetts, David


Redwood, John
Wilshire, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Richards, Rod
Wolfson, Mark


Riddick, Graham
Wood, Timothy


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Robathan, Andrew
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn



Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Andrew MacKay.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Allen, Graham


Adams, Mrs Irene
Alton, David


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Armstrong, Hilary





Ashton, Joe
Gerrard, Neil


Barnes, Harry
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Battle, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bayley, Hugh
Godsiff, Roger


Beggs, Roy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gordon, Mildred


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Graham, Thomas


Benton, Joe
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Grocott, Bruce


Betts, Clive
Hain, Peter


Blair, Tony
Hall, Mike


Blunkett, David
Hanson, David


Boateng, Paul
Hardy, Peter


Boyce, Jimmy
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bradley, Keith
Harvey, Nick


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Henderson, Doug


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Heppell, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Burden, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Byers, Stephen
Hoey, Kate


Caborn, Richard
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Callaghan, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hoyle, Doug


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hutton, John


Clelland, David
Ingram, Adam


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Coffey, Ann
Jackson, Helen (Shef"ld, H)


Cohen, Harry
Jamieson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Janner, Greville


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cryer, Bob
Jowell, Tessa


Cummings, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Keen, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dafis, Cynog
Khabra, Piara S.


Dalyell, Tam
Kilfoyle, Peter


Darling, Alistair
Kirkwood, Archy


Davidson, Ian
Leighton, Ron


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Litherland, Robert


Denham, John
Livingstone, Ken


Dewar, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dixon, Don
Loyden, Eddie


Dobson, Frank
Lynne, Ms Liz


Donohoe, Brian H.
McAllion, John


Dowd, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Macdonald, Calum


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McFall, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
McKelvey, William


Eastham, Ken
Mackinlay, Andrew


Enright, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Etherington, Bill
McMaster, Gordon


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McWilliam, John


Faulds, Andrew
Madden, Max


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mahon, Alice


Fisher, Mark
Mandelson, Peter


Flynn, Paul
Marek, Dr John


Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Foulkes, George
Martlew, Eric


Fyfe, Maria
Maxton, John


Galbraith, Sam
Meacher, Michael


Galloway, George
Meale, Alan


Gapes, Mike
Michael, Alun


Garrett, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)






Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Short, Clare


Milburn, Alan
Simpson, Alan


Miller, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Soley, Clive


Mowlam, Marjorie
Spearing, Nigel


Mudie, George
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mullin, Chris
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Murphy, Paul
Steinberg, Gerry


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stevenson, George


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Stott, Roger


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


O'Hara, Edward
Straw, Jack


Olner, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Parry, Robert
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Patchett, Terry
Tipping, Paddy


Pendry, Tom
Trimble, David


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dennis


Pike, Peter L.
Tyler, Paul


Pope, Greg
Vaz, Keith


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wallace, James


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Walley, Joan


Prescott, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wareing, Robert N


Purchase, Ken
Watson, Mike


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wicks, Malcolm


Radice, Giles
Wigley, Dafydd


Randall, Stuart
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Reid, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Winnick, David


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wise, Audrey


Rogers, Allan
Worthington, Tony


Rooney, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wright, Dr Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ruddock, Joan



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Education Bill.

Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill has been allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 9th February.

(2) Proceedings at a sitting of the Standing Committee on that day may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 10th February.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration shall be completed in two allotted days and shall he brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the second allotted day.

(2) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed on the second allotted day and shall he brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

(3) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of each of those allotted days as the Resolutions of the Business Committee may determine.

(4) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(5) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (4), and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(6) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken.

Proceedings in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

(3) The Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee.

(4) On the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Order of proceedings

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in the Standing Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken, except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Dilatory Motions

5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

6.—(1) On the first allotted day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to that period of two hours.

(3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion shall be added to that period of two hours.

Private business

7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (I) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on the Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill):


(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a Member of the Government; and
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule he added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time appointed for bringing proceedings to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

10. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

12. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Education Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Orders of the Day — Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 2

COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR-GENERAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND)

'Any function delegated under this Act affecting the Northern Ireland Civil Service shall be subject to an annual report made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland to the House of Commons.".—[Mr. Davidson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ian Davidson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am moving the new clause in order to raise matters of principle and to seek assurances from the Minister. I am moving it in this form in order to avoid duplication of the amendments that were moved in Committee.
The new clause is basically about accountability, both in principle and in process. In the Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) spoke at length about the role of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. This is probably well enough known to all hon. Members, so I do not propose to cover that ground again.
However, I am particularly interested in the role of that officer and his Department in providing information for use by hon. Members in holding Departments accountable for the actions they take following the passage of this legislation and the introduction of delegation. It is important that we are enabled, as Members of Parliament, to follow through the implementation of this legislation and be provided with appropriate information, so that we can genuinely scrutinise the use that is made of these powers.
I want to press the Minister to give us assurances that he will take the next available opportunity to introduce amendments or legislation along the lines indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill. I understand that he indicated at an earlier stage that he did not see the Bill as a Christmas tree to which all possible good measures could be attached. But the giving of powers at some point in the future to introduce control of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's survey would seem to be relatively easy.
In terms of the general issues with regard to Northern Ireland, given that heads of Department are not Ministers but civil servants and that there is an enhanced role for the civil service in Northern Ireland, this new clause is truly relevant.
In the discussion in Committee, grave concerns were expressed about the prospects for regional variations in pay and conditions being introduced as a result of devolutionary steps taken under this legislation. Similarly, the prospect of the impact of the legislation upon the dispersal policy of the Government was the subject of

considerable discussion. I very much hope that reports that come back from the Comptroller and Auditor-General will cover both those areas.
It will be a source of considerable concern if the use of devolution becomes a mechanism by which wage rates in Northern Ireland and some other parts of the United Kingdom are brought down to a level below that prevailing in the more prosperous parts of the country. It is important to me and to many of my hon. Friends that there is some mechanism by which this issue is kept constantly under review. I can see no other mechanism by which such an overview can be achieved.
It is important that the role of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in surveying the work of the Government, by undertaking value-for-money studies, is brought into this whole area of work. I and many of my colleagues took a wider view of the impact of contracting out and market testing than did many Conservative Members. We need objective assessment of the scale of diseconomies that flow from this legislation. We need to make sure that someone—I believe that the most appropriate person is the Comptroller and Auditor-General—is continuing to survey not only the gains that are achieved by any contracting out but the diseconomies. We need to make sure that that survey is undertaken objectively.
I will give one example of a case where concern is being caused to me and my colleagues. I have with me the annual report of National Savings.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am truly sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that he is going rather wide of new clause 2, which relates entirely to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Davidson: I understand that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was seeking to illustrate the general principle, that the Comptroller and the Auditor-General would be used to examine certain circumstances. I was going to use the example of the Department for National Savings, but I will not use that. However, if there were such a Department in Northern Ireland with which a parallel could be drawn, and if it were found that it was undertaking a particular task at a lower cost than that in the comparable private sector organisation—had I been using National Savings, I would have compared it with building societies—then it would be very difficult to see what could be gained by contracting out some subsection of its work.
The difficulty that we experience comes back to the question of whether to take an holistic view. Many Government Departments take an holistic perspective. They have targets set for them to which they work to achieve gains in efficiency. Once one starts to split up their activies it is much easier to identify the savings that might result from the contracting out of a particular service, but that does not allow one to measure, unless one makes a specific effort to do so, the diseconomies that result. In particular, it is not possible to identify, by any method that is known so far, the diseconomies that come from a loss of flexibility, team work or morale.
It seems to me that, if we intend to go further down the road of contracting out and market testing, someone has to play that wider role to provide information to the House. That is why, in the new clause, I am proposing that, for Northern Ireland, the Comptroller and


Auditor-General should regularly produce reports on all those activities that are not contracted out, in order that we may make that assessment.
I am convinced that the Government are concentrating on that which is easily calculable at the expense of that which it is more difficult to assess, but where the costs of this policy are far greater. So, in effect, even where we are achieving some short-term, limited gains, overall the picture is a loss. I know that Conservative Members will dispute that. The problem is that at the moment we do not have the evidence to establish which of us is correct.
I therefore believe that the new clause should be supported as the only way in which that can be done.

Mr. David Trimble: I welcome the fact that this new clause has been tabled, and I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) for moving it. It is particularly useful to have a clause of this nature specifically relating to Northern Ireland and imposing a duty to make reports to the House with regard to any delegations under the legislation. I hope that the hon. Member will forgive the reference to the drafting of the new clause, but I assume that it would also have to cover not just a delegation under the Bill but a delegation under any Order in Council that might be made under the existing clause 3 of the Bill, because the coverage of the new clause might not be effective without it. With permission, therefore, I will address the duty to report with regard to functions delegated under any Order in Council yet to be made or foreshadowed by clause 3.
It is particularly useful to have this obligation to account, because one of the concerns that we have had about the legislation—we went into this to some extent in Committee—is on the question of accountability. I suggested during the third sitting of the Committee that there were some special problems in accountability with regard to Northern Ireland because of the somewhat different administrative and legal structure that exists there. We made a very brief reference in Committee, where I used a form of shorthand, and it might be helpful to the House if I set out in a bit more detail what I think the situation there is and what the problems might be.
One of the problems stems from the fact that we still have in existence the legal structures for devolution. It may be paradoxical that a Government so opposed to devolution should retain in existence the legal structures for devolution, but that is the situation.
Originally, by which I mean under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, we had devolution establishing what were called "Ministries" and "Ministers". Clearly, Ministers ran Ministries. Under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the term "Ministry" was transmuted into "Department" and it also created the concept of "head of Department". The Head of Department to be set up under that legislation was to take the place of a Minister. It caused a little confusion in Committee when I used the term "head of Department" as the Minister did not recognise it—it was a new term invented by a previous Conservative Government to provide a different name for a Minister. Therefore, heads of Departments are Ministers, and I use the phrase as a type of shorthand.
The point that I made in Committee was that the persons who sit on the Front Bench and who are called

Ministers with regard to Northern Ireland are not Ministers for the purpose of devolution in Northern Ireland. Of course, we have the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments, the latter being run by heads of Departments. There was provision under the 1973 Act for heads of Departments under the devolutionary structures which no longer exist. The Northern Ireland Act 1974 provides that the functions of heads of Departments are now to be discharged by Departments.
I was slightly in error on that point in Committee because I referred to the function being discharged by permanent secretaries, but the legislation in fact states that the function of a head of Department is discharged by the Department, not by the Minister. The 1974 Act also provides that the Departments are to act under the direction and control of the Secretary of State but that does not refer to the Ministers. There are other Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and they may be assigned functions by the Secretary of State but they are not heads of Department.
I felt that that could cause some difficulty with this form of legislation. In Northern Ireland we used to have a Civil Service Department. It exercised the sort of control which in Great Britain is exercised by the Treasury over the civil service. Under the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, the functions of the Civil Service Department were transferred to the Department of Finance and Personnel.Those functions being transferred by the 1982 order were the "management and control" of the civil service.
In this context, management and control must clearly relate to the type of functions to which this legislation refers. It will be interesting to know the exact form in which the Order in Council is drafted and by whom the delegation is to be made. Although the Northern Ireland Act 1974 states that the function of Departments when discharging the work of the head of Department is to be done under the "direction and control" of the Secretary of State, the term "control" must have a slightly different meaning to the term as it is used in the Departments Order with regard to the functions of the civil service and of the Department of Finance and Personnel with regard to the management and control of the civil service.
Clause 1(1) states:
This section applies to any function delegated by Her Majesty with regard to the management of Her Majesty's
Home Civil Service".
The equivalent provision when it comes in the Northern Ireland Order in Council will presumably have to refer to functions presently discharged by the Department of Finance and Personnel, and presumably provision will be made for them to be delegated to other persons in the civil service hierarchy or to heads of agencies. There may still be overall political responsibility through the Secretary of State and the provision of the 1974 order for him to exercise or to give direction and control, but in that context "control" must have a slightly different meaning from that used in the Departments Order and the functions that are to be delegated.
That raises questions about accountability. It is all very well to say that there will continue to be accountability through the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State has a general power to give directions to the Departments and the Departments have the management functions—not the Secretary of State or the Ministers—and it will be further delegated to the heads of agencies. That means that


there are two or perhaps more steps between the political accountability through the Secretary of State to the House. That raises serious questions of accountability. I therefore welcome the new clause, because it would provide for an additional or better way to ensure accountability.
Another reason why it is desirable that this new clause be accepted and to reinforce the measure of control and accountability which the House could exercise with regard to delegation under the legislation is a special factor operating for Northern Ireland. That special factor is that the Northern Ireland Office, and the Departments which shelter under its wing, is unique among all the Departments of State of the United Kingdom in that it is the only Department for which the House has not established a Select Committee to scrutinise and monitor its functions.
That means that there is already a tremendous gap in accountability for Northern Ireland matters. Northern Ireland matters are remote not only geographically but in terms of the involvement of the House through such a Committee. The unique gap in the accountability for Northern Ireland matters means that there is a strong argument for a provision along the lines outlined in the new clause. I hasten to add that it is very much second or perhaps even third best, because any reports that are to be made to the House by the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland will merely give us information. The function of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is directed mainly to what could be called financial probity. It will not provide the proper scrutiny and control of policy, which is what we miss, especially because of the absence of a Select Committee. For those two reasons, it is desirable to have the new clause.
I must also refer to what could be regarded as the substance behind the new clause. At Second Reading and in Committee I expressed concern about the way in which powers to delegate functions under this legislation could be used. Despite repeated use in Committee of the phrase that salary and other matters could be set with regard to "local labour markets", the Minister did not allay my concerns about the way in which the legislation may develop.
It is not a concern which is unique to Northern Ireland. It can apply to other geographical Departments within the United Kingdom, the other Departments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer dismissively referred to in the autumn statement as "the territories", meaning Wales and Scotland. The same problems can arise there and, indeed, in other parts of England. Certainly we are delegating in what the Chancellor referred to as "the territories", so local labour markets could have a significant influence on the way in which salaries and conditions are determined in future.
The Minister sometimes felt that I was unnecessarily worried about that. I hope that he was right. I did not feel entirely reassured by what he said about the Government's policy. As hon. Members will know, throughout our debate on the Bill it has been felt—certainly by my colleagues—that the Government have a hidden agenda for the legislation, that it is not as innocent as it appears and that it may even be seen in retrospect as an important building block in a larger scheme which has yet to unfold.
That is why there are considerable reservations about the legislation, which have not been allayed by the debate so far. Our reservations lead us to believe that measures to reinforce accountability and supervision are necessary. In Committee, the Minister said that he would be prepared to make a form of annual report to the House on the operation of the legislation. Has the Minister been able to think in more detail about the form and content of that annual report? We tossed out some ideas and discussed them briefly in Committee and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Perhaps he can spell out the details of that annual report, because it is important that the House receives information about its operation.
If new clause 2 were incorporated in the Bill, that information would be provided. It is for that reason and for the other reasons that I have mentioned that I support the new clause. I have referred to the absence of the Select Committee and to the slightly different legal and constitutional structure in Northern Ireland. Those matters should be addressed, and I do not apologise for referring to them once more.
Because of the way in which the Bill is drafted, after tonight the legislation, so far as it affects Northern Ireland, cannot be discussed. We have not yet had the substantive Northern Ireland measure. That will come in the Order in Council provided in clause 3. We do not know the precise form that that order will take. As I said earlier, there may be slight differences between the Order in Council and the Bill, but we will be denied a debate on the Northern Ireland measure because of clause 3.
That is why I hope that the Minister will now be able to address the different constitutional and legal structures in Northern Ireland to which I referred in Committee. I must add that I have received a letter today from the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. Now that I think about it, I have covered all the points in the letter. There is no need for me to read the letter into the record.
I hope that the Minister is now apprised of the slightly different structures in Northern Ireland because of what was said in Committee and presumably because he has taken further advice on the matter. I hope that he will understand my concern. The functions of management and control of the civil service in Northern Ireland rest not with the Secretary of State or with Ministers, but with the Departments even though they are subject to direction from the Secretary of State. The Bill will delegate from the Departments down to other persons. That raises issues which the new clause seeks to address and that is why I support it.

8 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): We had a useful discussion in Committee on a similar amendment related to the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Great Britain. New clause 2 relates to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland. I will talk principally about him, as I do not wish to be ruled out of order.
Just as we argued in Committee that it was necessary to add to the Bill in this way, so I will argue now that it is not necessary to add to the Bill the proposed role for the CAG for Northern Ireland. As I pointed out in Committee, the Bill has no effect on the existing powers of the CAG for


Northern Ireland or for Great Britain, on the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General in general or on the Public Accounts Committee.
The CAG for Northern Ireland has powers under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921—I give the precise reference for the benefit of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—to audit the accounts of Northern Ireland Departments. I do not believe that that position has been changed by the examples in the hon. Gentleman's graphic and interesting comments.
Under the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, the CAG for Northern Ireland can conduct studies in economies, efficiency and effectiveness with which Northern Ireland Departments have used resources in discharging their functions. He can also report to Parliament. As I will argue in relation to the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) the CAG for Northern Ireland already has powers to deal with the considerations that he raised.
The Bill will not affect those powers of the CAG for Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Upper Bann made some interesting points about accountability and the exercise of that accountability in relation to the House. We will have an opportunity to discuss the annual report on a later amendment. I reaffirm that accountability through the Comptroller and Auditor General route is not affected by the Bill. Delegation under the Bill will be within Northern Ireland civil service structures, whether to Departments or to agencies. The Comptroller and Auditor-General in Northern Ireland will therefore be able in future, as he is now, to report the results of any examinations of delegated functions to Parliament.
I accept what the hon. Member for Upper Bann said about the different terminology, but senior staff, whether we are talking about accounting officers or agency accounting officers, may appear before the PAC to give evidence in future as now.
Let me reaffirm that the Government consider strong independent audit essential to ensuring the public accountability of the Northern Ireland civil service. If the diseconomies that the hon. Member for Govan fears arise, they will be picked up, as they would be now, by the Comptroller and Auditor General and brought before us.
The hon. Member for Govan asked for an assurance about the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I reaffirm what I said in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a commitment that he will take a suitable legislative opportunity when it arises and that that matter will be dealt with then.

Mr. Alan Williams: I did not mean to interrupt the flow of the Minister's eloquent speech, but he referred to the PAC and the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am sure that our colleagues from Northern Ireland would be fascinated by the situation in the PAC yesterday.
The Welsh Development Agency came before the Committee at the behest of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but a key witness in allegations against the management of the WDA had already been nobbled by the officials against whom he was making the allegations, as he was tied down with a £250,000 redundancy package, including a secrecy clause which precluded him from talking about his work at the WDA. When the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General went to see him,he

pointed out that he stood to lose £64,000 of his money if he were to tell them what he really would have liked to tell them.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be making a speech and not an intervention.

Mr. Alan Williams: All I can say—

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that we have had enough from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jackson: I have read the press accounts and I was disturbed by them. However, I do not believe that the problem arises in relation to the clause about Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that there may be difficulties under the present arrangements for the Comptroller and Auditor General, but the Bill makes no difference to the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General, whether in the United Kingdom as a whole, in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland.
We believe that there should be a strong independent audit. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has an important role, which is not affected by the Bill. The supporters of the new clause must show why the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, which I have said he already has, are insufficient. They have not tried to explain why the Comptroller and Auditor-General in Northern Ireland—and not in Great Britain—should be compelled and obliged by statute to report on all delegations made under the Bill.
That is highly unrealistic, particularly when we consider the nature and nitty-gritty of many of the delegations which we discussed in Committee. Some of the delegations may have little or no public expenditure implications. Is the Comptroller and Auditor-General in Northern Ireland to waste his time reporting on them?
The sensible approach must be to continue investigations under the existing powers. Insisting on investigations for each delegation could lead to a great waste of National Audit Office resources, weaken the power to investigate where there is real cause for concern, and therefore weaken the accountability that we all agree is important.

Mr. Davidson: Given the Minister's assurance that the Chancellor will table amendments in due course, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

ANNUAL REPORT

'An annual report of the delegation of functions under this Act shall be made to Parliament by the Minister responsible for the Office of Public Service and Science.'.—[Ms. Mowlam.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member's name is not on the list of those who signed the new clause, so it will need to be moved formally by an hon. Member on the list.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the new clause be read a Second time.—[Ms. Mowlam.]

Mr. Morgan: I should explain why a member of the Labour Welsh Front Bench rather than a member of the


Labour citizens charter Front Bench has opened the debate on a new clause on the need for an annual report by the Minister for the civil service, public service and science. It is fairly easy to explain the matter to anyone who has, like me, been a civil servant—and subsequently a Member for a Welsh constituency—for more years than I care to remember.
If a unit within the civil service was relatively self-contained, it means that it was relatively easy to disperse to areas such as Scotland and Wales—sometimes referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the territories. If those units were relatively easy to disperse because they were self-contained, it was relatively easy to delegate their functions. Therefore, in the eye of the storm, to a degree that might not have occurred to those Conservative Members who represent more the "have" rather than the "have not" areas—although I can see some exceptions on the Government Back Benches. [Interruption.] I was about to concede the point; I had not spotted the hon. Member for Lanbaurgh (Mr. Bates). I concede that there are areas in the north-east of England which are in the same "have not" category.
As far back as the 1960s, it was common for Governments, especially Labour Governments, to disperse the relatively self-contained, operational management aspects of the civil service to such areas. I recall the initiative taken by Lady Castle when she was the Secretary of State for Transport—if that was the title at that time —to set up, in the early days of mass computerisation when the Government tended to take those initiatives in advance of the private sector, the driver and vehicle licensing centre in Llangyfelach just outside Swansea. I was about to say that, if the Minister could pronounce Llangyfelach, I would advise the Labour party not to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill, but I know that that would be too easy a win for the Labour party.
Some of us have a particularly soft spot for Llangyfelach, partly because we have family connections in the area and partly because of the famous story told by Max Boyce about a Welsh rugby fan talking to an American fan who was standing next to him at a rugby match. The American fan asked the Welsh fan where he came from, and he said Llangyfelach. When the American turned away, the Welsh fan's friend said that he should have explained a bit more about it, because the American was probably from California. The Welsh fan then turned to the American fan and said, "I am sorry, I did not explain to you. I am from Llangyfelach, which is two miles from Morriston." For some of us, "two miles from Morriston" is all the explanation that we need.
In the 1960s and 1970s, as a result of the initiatives taken by both Labour and Conservative Governments under the Fleming plan and the Hardman initiatives, many of the easily delegated and dispersed self-contained aspects of the civil service were dispersed. In south Wales one thinks of the Business Statistics Office, the Export Credit Guarantees Department insurance services department in Newport, Group Two and Companies House in Cardiff. Those are the classic areas of the civil service that we are talking about as the most subject and prone to delegation under the powers sought in the Bill. That is why the people in the outer areas of great Britain, the territories, including the north-east of England, although the Chancellor would

not call that area a territory, want additional protection built in to ensure that the Government are clear in their own minds about delegation before we can possibly concede the powers to them.
Additional protection is needed, or the jobs in the relatively self-contained operational management aspects of the civil service will be put at risk and the Government will act on ideology: "Get rid of them. Delegate them. Put them into agencies. Disperse the management functions. Take away the parliamentary accountability." Obviously, the Government have pursued the strategy of politicising the upper levels of the civil service and removing parliamentary accountability from the lower and middle levels.
8.15 pm
Those of us who represent constituents in which large numbers of people work in specific units in the civil service, in the eye of the storm in the row about what the Government have in mind in the delegation of functions, put the matter high on our agenda. That is why we have tabled new clause 3. It is a simple but important two-line clause to ensure some protection for our constituents and the customers of the service.
We are not against flexibility in the line between direct parliamentary accountability and the delegation to the lowest level possible of as much management freedom in the civil service to take initiatives that result in a better service, lower costs and a better job. We want to give civil service management the powers and incentive to do the job better. We are not happy with the Kafkaesque, hall of mirrors, fairyland world of pseudo-privatisation into which the Government want us to plunge without any of the necessary parliamentary protection, which we obviously cannot afford to see happen.
In 1988 the Government set up next steps agencies. Some of them will be turned into trading funds, as happened in 1991 with Companies House, which is next door to my constituency. The trading fund is then led to a further strategy and ownership review, which is being undertaken at present. Once again, that will destabilise Companies House, which will possibly have three changes of management structure in three years. That is why we want additional protection provided in the Bill.
We have seen the introduction of contractorisation. Naval dockyards and atomic weapons establishments—there is one next door to my constituency—have been affected by contractorisation. The training and enterprise councils carry out some of those functions. Where is the operational responsibility for the functions carried out by the TECs? Are the TECs quangos? They are not listed as quangos.

Mr. Michael Bates: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that training and enterprise councils, especially the one in Teesside, do an excellent job in promoting business and developing opportunities for young people in some of the less prosperous areas of the country? Those training and enterprise councils are directly accountable to the Secretary of State for Employment and the Minister of State, Department of Employment.

Mr. Morgan: I thank the hon. Member for Langbaurgh for raising that matter. He has made precisely the same point as I did. I am not commenting on the merits or demerits of individual TECs or the TEC system as a whole.
I am saying that the Government have not yet defined a TEC. Is a TEC a quango? I do not know whether the hon. Member thinks that he knows the answer. Normally, the definition of a quango is whatever the Secretary of State in the Department says is a quango. The other definition is that quangos should appear in "Public Bodies". Normally, the new addition of "Public Bodies" is published about now.
I had hoped that we would have the benefit of a copy of "Public Bodies 1992" before this debate started to see whether some of the mess in the Government's mind about the form of some of the halfway houses between delegated functions in the civil service, quangos, and trading fund bodies. If "Public Bodies 1992" had come out, TECs might be in there. I can tell the Minister that, although the TECs were set up in 1990, they are not listed in "Public Bodies 1991". I shall look with great interest to see whether Companies House is in "Public Bodies 1992", because it was set up on a trading fund basis in 1991 and is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General as if it were a quango. However, I understand that it is not defined as such.
All that produces uncertainty and instability. The Labour party is against that uncertainty and instability, but favours flexibility. Flexibility gives people high morale in the civil service and gives them an incentive to offer suggestions on how their jobs can be done better, at lower costs or by providing a wider or better service.
That is the spirit that the citizens charter is supposed to embody. However, I am afraid that the Government want to destabilise the civil service simply because anything that is given the label of private sector is seen as good straight out of "Animal Farm"—and anything that is in the public service is seen as bad: "If it moves, privatise it." If it does not move, kick it until it moves. We believe that that is unhealthy. That is why we want the additional protection built in of a requirement that there must be an annual report.
We are dealing with muddy waters. We are dealing with five or six aspects half way between privatisation and public service. We do not believe that that is fair to the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the civil service, particularly where there is high unemployment. Such people cannot walk out of jobs if their civil service job is privatised or their Department is converted into an agency or trading fund. If they lose their job, they cannot walk into another job.
The civil service is an extremely important employer in Wales. That is why we do not believe that the muddy waters created by the Government have yet been sufficiently clarified for us to say to the Government, "Fine, you know what you are doing. Go ahead. You do not need to report back to Parliament every year." It is essential that the Government should be able to demonstrate to Parliament every year that they have clarified in their own mind which bodies should be next steps agencies, which should be trading funds and why, and which should be like the TECs—delegated companies limited by guarantee but not allowed to make a profit. They should clarify which bodies should be ready for privatisation while the Government have a majority committed to that course of action, and why.
The Government must explain to Parliament every year why they have chosen a certain slot from all the hallway houses. I give an example from close to my constituency of where the Government have not clarified in their own

mind just how much financial and managerial autonomy they wish to give to a body. I shall omit references to the DVLC at Swansea because I see two Swansea Members in the Chamber who might try to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In 1988 Companies House became a next steps agency and in 1991 it became a trading fund. It now has a dummy board of directors, as if it were a private company, called a steering board. What is a steering board? Has the Minister for the civil service ever explained to this House or the other place what it is and what it is supposed to do? I do not believe that he has.
A steering board can bring in people from the private sector. The senior directors of Companies House can take directorships in other companies, so they can say that they are almost in the private sector. But Parliament was never told that. If there were a requirement to make an annual report, the Government would have to say what they were doing with Companies House and why.
Problems can arise. For the first time ever, the directors of public sector bodies with statutory responsibilities—which can give criminal records to directors who are late in filing their accounts—can sit on the boards of private companies. How are those private companies regulated? The directors of Companies House could give a criminal record to directors of a company when they too sit on the board of that company.
You might think that I am giving a fictitious example, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me read out a letter from the companies registrar dated 12 June 1992 to the legal department of Bovis Homes Ltd. The letter refers to some six companies including Chiswick Green Management Ltd. and Devonhurst Management (Offices) Ltd., which are subsidiaries of Bovis Homes. Bovis Homes is a large company which is a subsidiary of P and O.
The letter says:
Thank you for your letter of 10 June about the problems you are facing in filing accounts for the above companies. As the accounts for these companies are already overdue, there is no provision for an extension of time to be granted. However, if I can have your assurance that the outstanding accounts will be delivered no later than 14 August 1992, I am prepared to delay prosecution action against individual directors for this period.
You should, however, be aware that each set of accounts delivered late after 1 July will be subject to a late filing penalty which is mandatory and payable on demand.
That implies that a criminal record could be given to the legal directors and other directors of Bovis Homes.
The letter from David Durham, the registrar of companies, to M. J. Platt of the legal department of Bovis Homes is interesting. The number two in charge at Companies House has also been a director of Bovis Homes since last year. That is a classic conflict of interest problem which should be reported to Parliament every year. The Government should say, "These are the difficulties that we have had in attempting to make Companies House act in a more businesslike way. It sounds fine in theory, but occasionally there are problems in practice." Conflict of interest problems will arise in practice.
One might almost have expected a postscript to Mr. Durham's letter saying, "My number two will see you at the board meeting and I hope that he will not see you somewhere else as a guest of Her Majesty after that." Such problems should be reported to Parliament every year. The Minister would do so if he took his job seriously and acted


not out of ideology but in an attempt to solve the practical problems of giving incentives to the civil service to make itself more efficient every year.
Instead, the Minister merely utters guttural grunts that everything that has the word "private" attached to it is good and everything that has "public" attached to it is fuddy-duddy, old-fashioned and no use to anyone. That is why we are in favour of a flexible line between public sector, normal civil service management and the new forms of management, provided that they are explained to Parliament every year and we receive a report on the practical problems that arise. On behalf of the taxpayer we could then certify that the civil service did its job properly, with all its statutory duties and powers to give people criminal records or impose fines on them. Parliament gives such bodies those powers.
It is not just about business. An annual report would preserve the morale of civil servants so that they felt part of a team and were not destabilised by the Governmenet"s ideological commitment to privatisation.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I congratulate him on his ability to catch things that fall from lorries. I thought that we were pretty good at that in Swansea, because we received the memorandum from the chief executive, but my hon. Friend scores the best total for things falling into his hands.
I take issue with my hon. Friend on only a few points. First, he said that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency was in Llangyfelach. It is not. It is in Clase, within the boundaries of the city of Swansea. I think that the reason why he said that it was in Llangyfelach was that he had a good joke about it. Secondly, he had great faith that the annual report which we hope will be published will reveal all that he wants it to reveal. He did not give credit to the Government or the civil service for the possibility of obfuscation.
The civil service and the Government could well produce a report which gave bare details but not the detailed information that my hon. Friend seeks, which could open the way to genuine probing by Parliament. Having said that, I agree that the new clause is important. In the light of what the Minister said in Committee, I believe that my hon. Friend is probably pushing at an open door. The new clause strikes at the heart of the question whether the new bodies can be made accountable to Parliament and the public.
Worrying things are happening in the civil service, partly, alas, because of the one-party rule that has prevailed in the past decade or so. Civil servants realise that the pathway to promotion means dancing to the tune of a Government who have been increasingly ideological, in the Orwellian sense which my hon. Friend described. Civil servants have been increasingly politicised during that time. The more powers are delegated by the Government, the less they are within the searchlight of Parliament.
If there is a report, Parliament should be able to keep some sort of check on what is being done. No one is saying that there should not be as much efficiency as possible in the civil service or that people's comfort should be disturbed regularly by a comparison with outside sectors.
We are concerned that the Government have a hidden agenda—they think that private is good and public is bad —and they will push the civil service along that continuum.
8.30 pm
Discrete areas, such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency at Swansea, are not at the core of the Department of Transport. Therefore, the Department has no loyalty to them. We fear that, when a highly ideological Government with a politicised civil service says—perhaps in rhetoric at a party conference—that we must privatise X number of jobs in the civil service, it is obvious that jobs that do not form part of the core will be thrown overboard because senior members of the service have no loyalty to them. Such areas have already been the objects of dispersal policy.
By seeking to fatten various parts of the civil service for market as part of their privatisation policy, the Government are undermining the regional policy that various Governments have pursued with some success. We have some good examples in Swansea: hence the presence of my right hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). We have benefited from the positive aspects of dispersal policy.
The vehicle inspectorate in Swansea is in danger of losing jobs as a result of Government policy to go ahead with privatisation. As a result of the decision to privatise by January 1994, there is a danger that jobs will also be lost at the Driver, Vehicles and Operators Information Technology Directorate, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West, and it may be sold to a foreign buyer. There is certainly a danger that it will be moved from the Swansea area, which has high unemployment. The jewel in the crown is the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which is at Clase and not at Llangyfelach.
Civil servants are wary of public scrutiny, want to go ahead on their own with a complacent Government and want to present other regional Ministers with fait accompli at the end of their deliberations. I invite the Minister to read and re-read the document by the chief executive at the DVLA, which so happily fell off the back of a lorry. Had it not done so, and had it not fallen into the hands of civil servants, it would have continued on its course within the Department of Transport and would have been presented as a fait accompli to the Secretary of State for Wales in February or March.
The issue affects job prospects in an area of high unemployment. Can the Minister deny that, in the normal course of events, had the document not been made public by a civil servant, the regional Minister would have been brought in after decisions had already been taken? Happily, the Secretary of State for Wales is aware of the danger, thanks to a public-spirited civil servant. He knows how vital the DVLA is, as it underpins the economy of Swansea and the sub-region. He can make representations to the Government. Had that not been the case, there would not have been any serious discussion of the matter.
The danger is that civil servants consider such issues on tramlines. The Government ask them to find ways to economise. They know that the pathway to promotion is by feeding the Government what they want in terms of privatisation, so they consider ways to privatise and will seek to ignore public opinion.
I shall quote to the Minister the words of Mr. Curtis, the chief executive at Swansea, who said at the end of his consultation document:
given the close links between unions at DVLC and local MPs, it would be likely to lead to Parliamentary Questions and requests to meet Ministers.
That might disturb our quiet life or stand in the way of the juggernaut of privatisation, which would lead to the loss of jobs in Swansea and would leave a white elephant there in the form of a large building. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West has costed that and perhaps he will give us the figures.
To return to the problem of narrow accountancy, civil servants consider how an issue will affect their department or a sector within it. It may make sense—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, he seems fairly wide of new clause 3. Could he focus his argument on the new clause?

Mr. Anderson: I am seeking to give a significant local example of what might be avoided if the searchlight of knowledge comes to the House as a result of the annual report. I shall continue with my example and then conclude.
I hope that the Minister will agree that essentially the Government must consider wider issues, which include job prospects. At DVLA, job prospects would have been totally ignored had the matter followed the course that the chief executive wanted. I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West might be accused, like Cato, of travelling around the streets mentioning DVLA again and again and perhaps of sickening Ministers, but we shall continue to do so because we want them to know that the matter is vitally significant to jobs in our constituency and in the sub-region. We fear that they would have ignored that fact. We want the wider employment implications to be considered fully. We know that they would not have been considered and we appeal to the Minister to ensure that that happens.
Parliamentarians will only be able to do their job, Madam Deputy Speaker, by opening such developments to public scrutiny and by giving as much notice as possible about the nature of delegations and the conditions under which they are given in an annual report. Essentially, we are meant to represent our constituents and to give Ministers some idea of where the shoe pinches and of the local effects of decisions taken at a high level, which affect people's lives.

Mr. Alan Williams: I apologise for the length of my earlier intervention and I add only that if you thought that was a speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, you should hear me when I make a speech. However, I do not intend to prevail on your good will, because I value it too highly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) raised a serious issue, which is at the heart of the relationship between the Executive, the Government, and Parliament. It is the essence of the concept of accountability. It is inevitable that the further down the line responsibility is passed—however sensible and logical that may be in administrative terms—the further the Minister, and thus the House of Commons, move from accountability.
Earlier, the Minister said that he saw the Public Accounts Committee as playing a key role in maintaining accountability. I want to try to show the clash between

what the Minister claims the Bill will sustain—accountability to Parliament—and the reality of administrative devolution, which will not only take decisions away, but convolute the lines of communication.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) spoke of the DVLA. The Minister will know from debates in Committee that the DVLA is close to the heart of hon. Members from my district. We were alarmed at the civil service internal document that stated that the information should be kept from Ministers because they might use their rights to call on Ministers to be accountable. The civil servants say that they do not want us to be able to ask Ministers about their decisions and recommendations, as that could be inconvenient. It is difficult to reconcile that with what the Minister has been trying to tell us about sustaining accountability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East also made a valid point about costing. However, the more one delegates and fragments, the more difficult it is to achieve direct financial accountability. If the decision to get rid of 3,000 jobs at the DVLA in Swansea is acted on, the DVLA would be able to say that its costs had been reduced by £40 million a year as it was no longer employing those people. Its representatives can pat themselves on the back and say that it was a good decision. They do not have to explain to anyone that the cost of those 3,000 people being out of work would, according to the latest Department of Employment figures, be about £27 million a year. The £27 million does not fall within their remit, and they are not accountable to their Ministers for it. The Treasury, the Department of Employment and the Department of Social Security—through lost national insurance contributions —will bear the cost.
One problem of the new clause is that it does not go wide enough. It refers to "the Minister responsible". In the case of DVLA, which Minister is accountable? Is it the one whose Department suffers the loss of national insurance income? Is it the one whose Department loses income tax? Is it the one whose Department pays unemployment benefit? The one Minister that it is not is the Minister to whom the DVLA is accountable, and who is accountable to the House. Therefore, costs are created and jobs lost, but the Minister responsible for those consequences is not accountable.
In the confidential document, the head of the DVLA said that the building would become a white elephant. The building cost more than £60 million when it was new and, according to a letter sent to me by the Minister for Public Transport, its depreciated value is now about £35 million. However, there is no accounting for white elephants. That sounds flippant, but it is true. Nobody has to account for the loss of the capital value of those premises.
Even the Minister accountable for the DVLA could come to the House and say that his Department had saved £40 million on labour costs, while ignoring the unemployment costs, for which someone else had responsibility. However, nobody has to come here to explain how £35 million worth of assets have been completely written off. Where is the accountability in that? How does the Minister explain that in terms of bringing delegated authority closer to the House? Virtually the only sector for which there would be some accountability would be the £76 million of redundancy payments that would have to be made to those declared unemployed.
8.45 pm
The process of fragmentation and delegation inevitably makes it more difficult to monitor the position. Even Ministers find it more difficult to do so. We accept that Ministers are meant to come to the House wearing the metaphorical sackcloth, and say, "The deed was done by John Evans in the sub-office in Llanelli, but I stand here at the Box and accept full responsibility for it." We know that the Minister involved does not bear full responsibility. Very often, he or she does not even recognise responsibility for it.
The Minister referred to the Public Accounts Committee. Recently, the Comptroller and Auditor-General identified errors in the accounts of the Development Board for Rural Wales, and qualified those accounts. The Minister—and certainly his permanent secretary as the accounting officer—will understand how serious it is for accounts to be qualified.
The Public Accounts Committee had an acrimonious meeting with the accounting officers for both the Welsh Office and the Development Board for Rural Wales. However, within a couple of weeks of that acrimonious exchange over the shortcomings of the chairman who was responsible for the package that led to the irregularity, the Secretary of State for Wales did the very opposite of apologising to the House. The Secretary of State should have apologised, said that the incident should never have happened and that, even though it happened to someone delegated to act in his name, he accepted responsibility.
Instead, the Secretary of State said that he did not care what the Public Accounts Committee said or whether there was a motion on the Order Paper asking for the chairman to be sacked. The Secretary of State promptly reappointed the chairman for three years. Where is the accountability there? Where is Parliament's power? It is bad enough if the organisations to which the power is delegated try to conceal information, but it is worse if they are doing so with the compliance and apparent endorsement of Ministers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Morgan) mentioned another example of how information is concealed from Ministers as well as Parliament. The matter was raised only yesterday in the Public Accounts Committee in relation to another organisation. The Minister for Public Transport is aware of yesterday's hearing in relation to the Welsh Development Agency. One of his colleagues, who has been on the Public Accounts Committee for many more years than me, said that the WDA report was the worst that he had come across in 20 years in the House. However, nothing will happen to the people responsible.
When the permanent secretary to the Welsh Office was asked who would discipline those people, he said that it would not be him or the Secretary of State. He was asked who would exert discipline within the WDA. Obviously, it would not be the members of the board, as they had all been in on the spoils. They had all been enjoying private mileage in cars paid for by the taxpayer. They were all in the affair together. Where is the accountability there?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Where is the relationship with the new clause that we are supposed to be debating? Will the right hon. Gentleman focus his argument on it?

Mr. Williams: I thought that I was doing precisely that, but I apologise for my lack of clarity. I was criticising the new clause, which lays down that the Minister responsible should produce an annual report. My point was that in this case the Minister responsible, the Secretary of State for Wales, far from bringing the matter to the attention of the House of Commons, condoned it and kicked the House in the teeth by saying that he would reappoint for another three years the people who had committed the misdemeanour.
I do not want to try your patience too far, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Morgan: Christmas spirit.

Mr. Williams: Indeed. Many good things go with Christmas.
Yesterday we learned that officials had mounted an operation named, appropriately enough for this season, Operation Wizard. As far as we can gather, the WDA had employed consultants at huge fees which were then concealed in the accounts. The operation has never been publicly declared. Allegedly, it involved enabling the agency to develop a management buy-out of part of its operations. That is known as taking delegation to its extreme. It is not the Minister who is opening this back door; it is the people with the delegated power who are trying to open it with a jemmy and take public assets out through it.
They planned to use public funds to carry out consultancy work on the feasibility of the project and set themselves up with a nice little number to take over some of the profitable operations, to run them as a privatised concern—all things which the Minister has said could never happen. The process runs as follows: delegation, subordination to a quango, then the step out the back door into a private entity with no accountability.
I am grateful to the Minister for having listened to my remarks, as he did in Committee, and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your good will.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has said, we feel that we are pushing at an open door in this matter, because in Committee the Minister gave a commitment to make an annual report to Parliament on the delegations that had been made. We are interested not just in the list of such delegations but in the parameters and conditions attached to them. We are interested in scrutiny and in ethical values, and as my hon. Friends have repeatedly said, we are interested in accountability.
When asked these questions in Committee, the Minister said:
the hon. Member is asking fair questions that I have not considered at this stage.
We do hope that he has considered them by now, and that he has some answers.
The Minister also said:
I see no objection to the idea that the report to Parliament should specify the person to whom delegations are made." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 24 November 1992; c. 56–57.]
We should like these two points clarified, if possible.
As the Government move towards a greater public/private mix in the civil service—a Treasury Minister has said that that is the ultimate aim—so the distinctions between the two sectors become blurred. Although both are working to serve the consumer, the lines of


accountability and the ethos of the civil service can get muddied in this process. It would be useful if the Minister could give us some information tonight about a matter affecting his Department.
It would be useful to know, for instance, whether Sir Peter Levene's appointment was a public one. I presume that he was appointed by Francis Maude, and he now works directly to the Secretary of State and is responsible for the efficiency unit and for purchasing. If his was a public appointment, what is his salary? That information should be in the public domain. Is it calculated on a pro-rata basis along the lines of the salary of a pennanent secretary? The case of Sir Peter exhibits the sort of difficulties about the culture and ethos of the civil service that concern us. He has, after all, a direct line to the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister.
We should also like to ask some questions about Sir Peter's powers. He is chairman of the docklands light railway. One would not want to make the connection, but in his role in the civil service efficiency unit, he suggested that civil servants should move to Canary wharf. Similarly, he is a vice-chairman and managing director of a merchant bank, Wasserstein Perella, but one would not want to connect his responsibilities at the bank—for mergers, acquisitions, advisory services, restructuring, re-capitalisation, takeovers and leveraged buy-outs—with his role in the efficiency unit and in the future of the civil service. It is this sort of grey area that we find confusing.

Mr. Robert Jackson: I do not want to enter a competition to determine the location of the DVLA as between Clase and Llangefelach— [Interruption.] I have made a reasonable approximation of that pronunciation, but we shall have to listen to the tapes. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) seemed to be a little hazy about his geography. I noticed that he was rebuked by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), so he had better not interrupt from a sedentary position to correct my pronunciation—he had better find out where the place is first.
We have had a rerun of the debate in Committee about the Government's commitment to dispersal policies and their compatibility with delegation. I repeat now what I said in Committee: the Government remain committed to dispersal policy. It is one of a number of general central policies of Government which will continue irrespective of delegations under the Bill.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) asked about Sir Peter Levene. I shall have to write to her about the details, but I understand that he was appointed by the Prime Minister. There is a danger in the way that the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members speak; they give the impression that they do not believe that the experience of people from the private sector can be of use in the public sector. That is a great mistake. We in the public sector can learn a great deal from the experience of people from the private sector. Quite often, the people concerned voluntarily give of their time, sometimes at a low rate of remuneration, and there is an element of public service in that which should be acknowledged by all sides of the House.
I am a little surprised at the debate. I know that it is the custom to stray wide, but we shall have an opportunity to return to many points on Third Reading. Not one of the instances mentioned by Opposition Members related to

management functions covered by the Bill. By definition, the annual report will contain nothing relevant to the points that were made.
I take this opportunity to say a few words about leaking and falling off the back of a lorry. The hon. Member for Swansea, East spoke as though it were a matter of credit for somebody to acquire property that had fallen off the back of a lorry. Governments of both parties have for many years accepted that civil servants have a duty to serve the Government of the day. If government is to be conducted properly, it is important, in the interests of everybody, that the Government can have confidence in their ability to consider proposals and to make them public only when it is appropriate.
It is not a question of undue secrecy. It is just important that all the options, including radical options, should be available to be considered. Many proposals are dropped as a result of consideration within Government. Opposition Members spoke about the effect on staff. I would simply say that a document was leaked, and that had an effect on the staff—and that is not a happy situation.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Clearly we could debate what is in the public interest. In my judgment, there is a strong argument for saying that when, in such a case, a document is produced by a civil servant that is of a highly political nature and which rules out all options save one—and that option would involve the destruction of 3,000 jobs in an area of high unemployment—there is a public interest in that issue being debated openly and fairly, rather than being presented to the regional Minister at the end of the day. The normal presumption against the leaking of such a document could be overriden when such considerations apply.

9 pm

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is fair-minded and honourable, and I can see that he feels a bit defensive. It is right that he should feel defensive. If such a proposal were made, of course there should be an active debate. There would certainly be an active debate when right hon. and hon. Members of the calibre of those who represent the two Swansea constituencies are involved.
The fact remains that no such proposal was made. It was simply raised for discussion within Government. I do not want to trespass on your patience and tolerance, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alan Williams: I am instinctively with the Minister in his remarks, in that I do not favour the leaking of documents. Like the Minister, my colleagues and I have experience within Departments, and clearly certain rules must be observed. We do not want to disregard them.
However, sometimes a different argument can be made than that put by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). Sometimes, a situation arises involving an individual known today as a whistleblower. We had that only yesterday. The person blowing the whistle was doing so against the individual to whom he had to report if he had a complaint. What should the individual do in that situation? It is not a question of someone wilfully wanting to leak a confidential document or anything of that nature. In the case to which I refer, the individual wanted to make a complaint against the activities of senior management—but the line of complaint


was to the very senior management that was the subject of the individual's complaint. He had no other route to follow.

Mr. Jackson: The right hon. Gentleman has extensive experience of Government; leaking was a problem when he was a member of a Government, and it remains a problem today. I emphasise that it tends to prejudice the ability of Government to give reasonable consideration to all the options if leaking occurs.
The Opposition are seeking, through new clause 3, to formalise the promise of an annual report that I made on behalf of the Government in Committee. The Government's view, as I explained in Committee, is that promoting that promise to the face of the Bill is neither necessary nor desirable. I could say also that the amendment is inappropriately drafted, because it refers specifically to
the Office of Public Service and Science.
It would cause considerable problems if that were on the face of the Bill and at some stage in the future, peradventure, that office were, as a result of changes in Government machinery, replaced by some other body. that is a good example of the inflexibility that arises from such an attempt to dot every "i" and cross every "t".
Hon. Members are of course right to make great play of the importance of keeping the House informed of civil service management matters —although I am not sure that the House is always terribly interested. Perhaps the attendance tonight and at previous debates for which the Government have found time illustrates that. In principle, however, it is a fair point that we should keep the House informed—hence the promise that I made of a report on delegations by written answer.
In fact, that would give the House more information about the management of the civil service than it has had before. According to the scenario constructed by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), delegation inevitably leads to the extension of the accountability chain, so that there is less and less accountability. I do not agree: I think that this occasion for delegation has led to the creation of an entirely new opportunity.
All the next steps agencies operate within written and published frameworks of objectives and performance obligations. As the right hon. Gentleman made a point about chief executives, let me add that those frameworks include a clear statement of a chief executive's accountability to the Minister concerned. All that is spelt out much more clearly than the provisions normally found in civil service business units outside the agency framework. In short, accountability to Parliament, and the provision of information about the management of the civil service, have been extended.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West made a fair point when he identified the problem of being kept up to date with all the changes in the organisation of the civil service and public-service bodies, which are already happening and may increase in the future. I certainly undertake to examine the publication that the hon. Gentleman quoted —"Public Bodies"—and see whether it can be improved and extended to provide more information about the range of different bodies.
I recognise that, as the process of public service reform goes ahead, certain issues arise: following changes in the status of bodies, for instance, legal relationships require clarification. I shall examine that point for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not believe that the report that the Opposition demand in new clause 3 would give him what he seeks. He cited the status of training and education councils, for instance; the legal position and accountability of TECs would have to be dealt with in a different way.
The hon. Member for Redcar asked what we would put in the report. We would publish an annual list of delegations in the form of a written response to a parliamentary question. The list would specify the nature of delegations, and—the hon. Lady stressed this point particularly—the office of the recipients of delegations. It would include a summary of the main conditions where conditions were applicable.
Obviously, hon. Members would have an opportunity to pursue matters in further detail. Where appropriate, they could pursue with the original recipient of a delegation, whether he was a Minister or an official—or with the central Department, which might be the Treasury or the Office of Public Service and Science—the granting of delegations and commissions. That would considerably extend the present availability of information, and I think that it would be very helpful.
I do not think it necessary to apply such provisions to something that is on a statutory basis on the face of the Bill, referring to a specific Department whose status and name may change. After the initial rush of delegations, the torrent is likely to dry up—if there is a torrent—and many of the delegations that follow will be minor and specific.
It will always be open to hon. Members to table parliamentary questions asking for information at shorter intervals than the annual process that I have described, or, indeed, to pursue matters of detail arising from the original answers. Those interested will have access to information when it is required, and when it will be useful to them and to the House.

Ms. Mowlam: I welcome that answer. If the Government agreed to a freedom of information Bill, the problem of leaking and of where documents arrive would no longer be a problem. Let me put it on record that I wish to cause no offence to Sir Peter Levine—who, when I was on the Public Accounts Committee, was one of the most competent people who came before us in comparison to many of the other civil servants who were present. My point is very different: it relates to the mix of public, private and ethical accountability, which I think the Government are avoiding.
In view of the specific points that the Minister has listed, I do not think that we shall secure the further accountability and ethical scrutiny that we want. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS

Ms. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): I beg to move movement No. 5, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'as he thinks fit' and insert
'as specified in Schedule consultation to this Act,'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 13, a new schedule— Consultation —

1. Delegations made under this Act will give departments or agencies any powers to change the terms and conditions of civil servants without conforming to the normal processes of consultation with recognised trade unions and staff.

2. The Act does not alter current arrangements for consultation or negotiation with the national unions specified in the national pay agreements with individual unions or in any other nationally agreed documents.

3. Arrangements set out in this Schedule shall apply in other areas, ie where terms and conditions of service are not the subject of formal written national agreements, and where it has in the past been the practice to consult, including over the granting of discretions. In these areas, the recognised trade unions and, as appropriate, the staff affected by the proposed change will be:

(a) informed of, and given the opportunity to comment on, proposals to delegate powers to departments and agencies (paras 4–5 below); and
(b) consulted on proposals by the holders of delegated powers to introduce any changes to the terms and conditions of their staff (paras 6–7 below).

4. The unions at national level will be informed of proposals to make delegations to departments and agencies and given the opportunity to comment both on the principles of the delegation itself and on the conditions that may be attached to it. The relevant union(s) will be informed of the functions to be delegated; the recipient(s) of the delegation; when the delegation will take place; the nature of any conditions that the central department concerned propose to attach to the delegation; and, in broad terms, the purpose of the delegation. A reasonable timescale will be given for comment.

5. Where a function is sub-delegated within a department or agency (ie. where, consistent with the terms of a delegation, responsibility for the function is delegated by the original recipient to another Crown servant not specifically designated in the original delegation from the central departments) the department or agency concerned will consult the recognised trade unions and, as appropriate, the staff themselves about the granting of the sub-delegation.

Ms. Hoey: On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) referred to the Bill, in his own inimitable way, as a "vague" Bill. In Committee, the Minister put a little flesh on the bones. The purpose of the amendment is to breathe some life into the corpse by filling in the missing gaps and giving it what is missing—a heart.
We dwelt at length in Committee and on Second Reading on the formalisation of the process of consultation on proposed delegations. There has been much unanimity between the Government and Opposition Members about the positive value to an organisation of a proper consultation process. We have heard how management is strengthened when considering structural change by drawing on the valuable experience of the work force.
The value of the contribution of the civil service unions is not, and has not been in the past, limited to helping the interests of their members. Their contribution to the effective running and development of our world-leading civil service has been considerable, as I hope the Minister will agree. On Second Reading and in Committee, the Minister graciously apologised for the appalling lack of consultation with civil service unions before the introduction of the Bill. That was, indeed, a very unfortunate oversight.
In Committee, the Minister struggled to respond constructively to the concerns that we expressed, but to

some extent he succeeded. He produced a note prepared by the management side in the civil service on consultation with the civil service unions. He said:
The note that I refer to makes it clear that recognised unions will be consulted before delegations arc made and the departmental and agency trade unions will be consulted about proposals to change terms and conditions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 24 November 1992; c. 63.]
On Second Reading, the Minister repeatedly called the Bill a "poor little Bill". Perhaps, therefore, I can call this a harmless wee amendment, which seeks to enshrine the terms of the note in schedule 1 and the Minister's subsequent assurances in statute. If it is good enough to be put into practice and quoted in defence of the Government's position, why is not it good enough to include in the Bill?
I could readily understand the Government's opposition to an amendment guaranteeing rights to trade unions if we were seeking to define those rights, but all we are seeking to do is hold the Government to the assurance that they freely volunteered. I hope that the Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—I am not sure where he is, but he is not here—will feel able at this late stage to accept that the intention of the amendment is to put their words in their proper context and into practice.
The value of this move would be considerable, and would represent a vote of confidence in the staff of the civil service. The Bill has attracted cross-party consensus on the potential benefits of delegated and decentralised management. I hope that the Government will feel able to extend this spirit of consensus and the spirit of Christmas—in which many hon. Members are indulging at the moment, which is why they are not here—by accepting the amendment to implement their plans.
In Committee, the Minister said that he had
no problem in subscribing to the general arguments for consultation … put forward".
The only argument that he used to counter the idea was that it was
without precedent … nor have civil service unions ever had such a role."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 24 November 1992; c. 65.]
Is that really the best argument that the Minister can find? Surely it is a little weak to recognise the validity of our argument about the need for consultation, to suggest his own plans for dealing with the matter, and then not to agree to stand by that plan in law, although we welcome it, just because it has not been done before.
9.15 pm
We are satisfied with the text of the Minister's proposal on consultation, and we invite him to commit those very words to history by incorporating them into the Bill and accepting the amendments, and hence new schedule 1. It may break new ground for the Minister to make such a move, but if he accepts our argument, as he seems to, I hope that he will have the courage of his convictions and do so.
If those welcome assurances are not put on a statutory footing, confidence will inevitably be undermined. Such art omission would raise questions about the Government's commitment to the concept of proper consultation—and Opposition Members may feel unable to take the Government's other commitments on the Bill at face value.
When the Minister was pressed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) on what the hon. Gentleman himself described


as a characteristically serious point, he conceded that it was not Government policy to provoke or secure derecognition. If the Government are not prepared to back up their proffered commitment on consultation, are we also to assume that they will happily go back on their statement on derecognition?
The Government have a choice between confirming and reinforcing the answers that they gave to the real worries raised, undermining their stated assurances and laying bare a hidden agenda.

Mr. Robert Jackson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) on what I believe is her first appearance at the Dispatch Box, although she has of course spoken in her official capacity in Committee. I congratulate her, too, on her eloquent figure of speech about putting a heart into our Bill. If I may say so, the hon. Lady could put a heart into even the most lifeless of corpses.
I welcome what the hon. Lady said about the importance of the potential consensus on decentralisation in the public service. That is an important phrase, on which I hope we will be able to build. However, we shall not be able to accept the amendment. As the hon. Lady has explained, it refers to a schedule which consists of a copy of a note sent by management to the unions setting out the consultation arrangements when delegations are made. I agree that that is a splendid document. How could I do otherwise, as it came from us—but I cannot accept it as a schedule to the Bill.
In the first place, amendments Nos. 5 and 13, taken together, would be defective. If they were accepted the only condition that central Departments would be able to place on delegation would relate to consultation with the unions. That is far too narrow. There are many potential conditions that we may wish to impose on delegations—conditions on value for money and the limits of delegations, and perhaps even conditions involving subjects raised in the House and in Committee, such as dispersal policy and equal opportunities policy. It would be appropriate to impose such conditions under which power should be exercised, yet they would be precluded by the amendments.
I repeat what I said in Committee—that the Government accept that the unions and staff need to know with whom they are dealing on matters relating to the terms and conditions of the staff represented. The Bill does not detract from any legal rights of staff to be consulted on changes in terms and conditions. I repeat that the present arrangements for consulting the unions before discretions are given to Departments and agencies will also extend to delegations.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall fairly asks why, if the Government intend to take such action anyway, they should not simply put it into the Bill. We do not believe that it would be right to make such proposals part of a statute. Although the hon. Lady was inclined to dismiss it, I repeat the important point that the amendment would give the civil service unions a totally new and unprecedented statutory right to play a part in determining the level at which staff-management decisions are made. That would be wholly unwarranted. We do not think that there is any case for giving civil servants statutory protection unlike that applying to any other employees, when they are already adequately protected as regards consultation by the general law of the land.
I remind the House that the amendment is defective for the reasons that I have explained. It would prevent the Government from imposing other essential conditions—for example, to protect expenditure controls—and it might constrain the freedom of recipients of delegations in a variety of ways. I urge the House to reject this unnecessary and inappropriate amendment.

Mr. Davidson: I will speak briefly on the need for discussion and debate with staff, and on the issues of consultation and explanation. There is a grave danger that the staff will not be taken along with the thrust of the new moves. There is a real fear among many staff that there is a hidden agenda which is designed to privatise the civil service, and to erode wages and conditions. They believe that the measure is not designed to liberate staff.
I give the example of the National Savings bank. The director of the bank has produced a report in which he says of the staff:
They have few equals in dedication and enthusiasm".
He also said:
I pay particular tribute to the dedication National Savings staff have to customer service and the continuous improvement of that service.
There are many other similar quotes too numerous to mention. The annual report shows that the National Savings bank is meeting the targets set for it. Indeed, it is doing better than comparable financial organisations in the private sector, yet it is being broken up in a way that it believes is likely to worsen its ability to undertake the tasks that it has been asked to undertake by the Government.
In such circumstances, the staff are entitled to believe that there is a hidden agenda. They want the service that they provide to the public to improve, and they see that there are two ways in which to move forward. The first takes the holistic perspective. It looks at the department as a unity and seeks to identify ways in which to increase the output of the service with less input. It seeks co-operation, and it seeks ways in which to build team work and in which to maintain the admirable record of flexibility from staff. That is one route.
The other route is simply to see the service fractionalised, with each individual department focused only on itself, with no regard to the functions of the organisation as a whole and with each part having its own targets and objectives. The staff believe that that is the framework into which market testing and contracting out will force them. In the circumstances, it is essential that we undertake processes of consultation which not only explain Government policy but seek to amend and justify it in the context in which staff operate.
If we wish to have efficiency and improvement in organisations such as the National Savings bank, we must work with the staff or against them. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is far more likely that we shall achieve improvements in the service to the public if we work with the staff rather than against them. I hope that the Minister and the Government will give the strongest possible assurances that dogma will not have a role in the implementation of efficiency targets. I hope that the Government will have an open mind about the way in which such objectives are to be achieved and that they will not force through policies involving, for example, contracting out and market testing when such policies are not appropriate.

Mr. Robert Jackson: It might be convenient if I reply now to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson). The phrase "hidden agenda" has been used on several occasions during the debate. The Government's agenda on this issue is not hidden. It has been spelled out in speeches and written about extensively in the press. Everybody knows what our agenda is, and there was some discussion of it in Committee upstairs.
We ask of any function within government whether the state needs to be providing it—whether it should be retained or abolished. If we accept that a function should be performed, we ask whether the state needs to perform it: whether it needs to be done by public officials or whether it can be done in the private sector—in other words, whether it can be privatised. If it emerges that it cannot be privatised, we examine whether it can be put on to an agency basis—becoming an arm's-length contract with Government and remaining within Government as a next steps agency.
We ask of all functions within Government, whether they are carried out by agencies or directly by Government, whether they can be subjected to market testing to establish a competitive basis for seeing that value for money is obtained for the services that are being provided and to enable funds to be recycled back into the provision of services, if efficiency gains can be made. That is a clear and transparent agenda. It has been publicly announced and extensively debated over the years, including in the period before the last election.
The hon. Member for Govan should accept that the Labour party will have to consider the fundamental presumption behind the Government's policy that the public services exist for the benefit of the public. If there is an obstacle to the potential consensus to which the hon. Member for Vauxhall referred, it could be that Opposition Members are inclined to give too much weight to the question of those who provide public services as opposed to those who benefit from them.
In a recent debate, I characterised the difference that perhaps exists between the parties. I hope that it will narrow. I said that the difference between the Government and the Opposition was that the Government believed in public service while the Opposition believed in public provision. That is not a satisfactory position for the Opposition to take. But the Government's agenda is clear, it is not in any way hidden and it is clearly apparent.

Mr. Davidson: I appreciate the point that the Minister makes about the concept of hierarchy. We are not entitled to believe that dogma is driving the policy of the Government when they have decided that a function such as national savings shall remain linked to the public sector, although on an agency basis, and it seems reasonable for the Government to want to establish clear targets for an organisation such as that.
But we are entitled to believe that dogma is driving Government policy when they not only set the organisation output targets and efficiency objectives but then say how its functions shall be carried out by insisting that sub-activities within the overall output of the organisation shall be achieved in a particular way. Nobody in the private sector has to operate in this way.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is making an intervention, it is too long.

Mr. Jackson: As we said in Committee, we subject all delegations to certain central policies of Government. The hon. Gentleman has been arguing for certain such policies to remain with Government, for example, on dispersal. Alongside central policy on dispersal, it is a central policy of Government that there should be market testing. That is the explanation of what he sees as a paradox.

Ms. Hoey: I regret that the Minister has not responded to our arguments, but has more or less repeated what was said in Committee. He has not come up with anything new. The message that he is sending civil servants will ensure that there is a reduction in morale, for it is clear that he does not want fully to consult and involve the civil service unions. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ms Mowlam: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
'subject to the operations of the delegation of that function being carried out in accordance with Government policy on equality of opportunities'.
In this amendment, we are seeking clarification from the Minister on the impact of the Bill on equality and the whole question of sex discrimination. The note on terms and conditions in the civil service released by the Cabinet Office clearly stated that the Bill would not of itself change anyone's terms and conditions of service; nor would it affect the rights of civil servants in respect of protection of their terms and conditions.
We believe that that will not be the case. There is really a threat that the Bill, if passed, will have a serious impact on equal opportunities in the civil service. The Bill would enable the delegation of functions to both heads of Departments and agencies, one of these functions being the delegation of equal opportunities. This, we believe, could have serious consequences for women employees.
We are also concerned about monitoring. Delegation, we believe, poses a threat to equal opportunities monitoring. Performance pay for women is monitored, but we are concerned that, after the Bill is passed, the delegated powers will mean that individual Departments will set up their own pay machines, some of which may not use pay scales and incremental progression. It will then be difficult to monitor awards or performance-related pay across a whole range of pay systems and to produce meaningful statistics. We also believe that the OPSS will be unable to monitor complaints on discrimination and harassment, presumably because of the difficulties of monitoring.
It is these questions that concern us particularly. What worries us is that the Government will use this Bill to delegate powers and that different Departments and agencies will then opt for what are seen to be flexible working patterns. If we take standby appointments, these will not be responding to equal opportunities, such as flexible hours and job sharing, and there will be no monitoring of sexual harassment, recruitment, child care, disciplinary action taken in relation to harassment and discrimination, career breaks, training and development.
We are seeking from the Minister with this amendment some guarantee of those equal opportunities post-delegation.

Mr. Robert Jackson: The Government entirely agree with the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) about the importance of equal opportunities in employment. It is a matter of record that Government and the public service have a very good record as equal opportunities employers; and we are committed to maintaining it. For example, there are our programmes of action on women and race and our code of practice on disability, which have been published, the annual progress reports, and the Prime Minister's recent initiative on appointments of women and ethnic minorities to public bodies. We have a very strong commitment, and we support the spirit of the hon. Lady's concern.
Nevertheless, we cannot accept the amendment. We have had some discussion in this debate—and it was a theme which ran through our discussions in Committee—of the importance of what we have now come to call, having developed a jargon, central policies, which will run across and alongside, transcending, overriding and driving through, the whole range of policies which will be delegated under this Bill.
There is nothing in this Bill which interferes with the power of Government to enforce such central policies—relating, for example, to equality of opportunity or, indeed, to any other matter. If the delegation of a particular function raises particular equality issues, this Bill, now that the previous amendment has been withdrawn, allows suitable conditions to be attached.
The hon. Member for Redcar mentioned monitoring. It will be perfectly possible for monitoring of questions of sexual harassment and pay arrangements to continue, as appropriate, under the new arrangements; it will become easier—not be made possible, because it is simply a matter of facilitation—under the operation of this Bill.
I can give the hon. Lady the assurance, if that is what she is seeking, that these delegations do not in any way undermine our central policies. To take something dear to the heart of the Government, there is nothing on the face of the Bill about value for money, but the Government will continue to use that as a criterion, alongside other central policies, for example on equal opportunities, when we are considering delegation or the exercise of delegated powers.
The amendment is unnecessary, but it has provided a welcome opportunity for us to place on record our continuing commitment to equality of opportunity. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw it.

Ms Mowlam: We were very keen for some terms and conditions to be included in the Bill. I do not want to sound jaundiced, but one always lives in fear that the Government might forget that they promised certain terms and conditions, especially those on sexual equality, when the delegations take place. However, in view of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Robert Jackson.]

Ms Mowlam: We have had the pleasure of the Minister's company throughout the Committee stage but, sadly, that of the Secretary of State only for part of Second Reading and not tonight. Although it is a party night and

I know that many people are preparing for Christmas, it is sad that the Secretary of State could not be here for any part of the debate in view of its seriousness.
I shall be succinct. I want to put on record the importance of our vote against the Bill. As we have seen in the Chamber tonight and in Committee, there is common ground between the Opposition and the Government. There are certain advantages to be obtained from decentralisation and delegation. We may or may not agree on the detail of the delegation, the specifics of pay or certain terms and conditions but it is impossible to know whether we agree—the scope of the Bill permits broad delegation but, in Committee and this evening, the Minister has emphasised that he was talking only of examples, not of specific plans.
It is important to note that the Transfer of Functions Orders covered by the Bill include pay and conditions in addition to the organisation and conduct of the civil service. In other words, the Bill encompasses all the management functions relevant to the home civil service.
Our main objection to the Bill is the part that it plays in the Government's overall strategy of contracting out and privatisation. The Minister said that we kept referring to a hidden agenda but we did so only because the Government have assured us throughout the debate that this is merely a technical, small Bill of minor importance. However, his responses this evening have shown clearly that the Bill is part of a jigsaw and part of the Government's overall stategy for privatisation and contracting out. We disagree with that final goal.
The Bill will drive down wages and conditions for members of the civil service. Departments or parts of Departments faced with market testing are already cutting their major expense which is, of course, salaries, in order to compete with external bids.
The experience of market testing and contracting out among local authorities is that competition from the private sector is often solely on the grounds of undercutting wages. Civil servants say that when part of their Department is put up for market testing, members of the work force offer to cut holidays, pensions and sick pay in the hope of preserving an in-house bid and of saving their jobs.
That puts paid to the Minister's argument that the proposed changes are about quality, service and choice. The Government's prime consideration is cost cutting, which is achieved by contracting out and privatisation. It is clear that privatisation is the centre of the Government's policy. On Second Reading and in Committee, the Minister and the Secretary of State have tried to skirt the issue by saying that they will choose the public or the private route, whichever is the most viable.
However, in a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies on 23 November, their colleague the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stated the Conservative party's position more starkly. He said:
In every Department of State we are no longer simply looking for obvious candidates for privatisation. The conventional question was 'what can we sell.' The question must now be turned on its head to 'what must we keep?
The Government are doing all that they can to make parts of the civil service attractive to the private sector. It is clear from the internal papers issued by the Treasury that the way in which departmental managers are required to assess the relative value of in-house bids and tenders from outside the civil service will not guarantee a level playing


field. The Minister has repeatedly said that there will be a level playing field between in-house and outside bids. However, when we consider the terms and conditions, that will not be the case.
The civil service bid is required to assess all in-house costs including accommodation and what are called hidden overheads. Bids from outside the civil service are made on a cash basis. Thus it is possible for an in-house bid that is lower in cash terms to lose out to a bid from the private sector even though it may cost the public service more, simply because the private sector did not have to take into account equipment and accommodation costs or a variety of other issues.
There are already clear examples of how bias has been given to private sector bids. In respect of the Ministry of Defence, we need only consider Tarmac's bid for the Property Services Agency. Once the bid was made, Tarmac was allowed to come back with additional funds for possible redundancies. It was then given a guarantee of £11 million in future contracts, £8 million of which was from the MOD.
There is a similar case of unfair bidding between in-house and external bids in respect of the Central Office of Information. Williams Lea was allowed to make a second bid to include redundancy payments and no one else was allowed to participate in the second round of bids. Those are two serious examples where in-house bids have not enjoyed a level playing field.
The Government could have simply continued to rely on the pressures of market testing to drive down wages. However, they ran into an obstacle in Europe in the form of a directive in 1981 which gave employment protection to workers when they were transferred from one commercial undertaking to another.
Until recently, it was unclear whether the directive applied to non-commercial undertakings such as local authorities or the civil service. A recent European Court of Justice ruling states that it does. That directive on the protection of workers' rights extends through local authorities and the civil service with the workers when they are privatised.
That has caused confusion in the Government's market testing programme. John Hall, who chairs the Confederation of British Industry's competing for quality group and who is also secretary of the Cleaning Support Services Association, has said of the workers' rights that are to be protected:
This will make tendering totally unattractive. It is staggering news. It is probably the most serious challenge ever to our industry and we will fight it tooth and nail…If the clause
on the protection of workers' rights
goes on the statute book then there will be little point in our members getting involved in public sector tendering.
Similarly, a spokesman for Onyx UK, another important contractor for local authority services, stated on Radio 4's "Face the Facts":
If private sector employers become liable to take on not just council services but the workers' original terms and conditions as well, it would change the face of compulsory competitive tendering and though there would be nothing to stop the private sector remaining involved, much of the rationale behind the process would have been lost.
I think it would slightly emasculate what the Government's intention was behind the compulsory competitive tendering regulations which is to reduce the costs to local authorities by opening it up to private sector tendering which would mean that if the private sector win, the employees would effectively be employed on normal private

sector conditions. Therefore, if the regulations are changed and we would be obliged to take over the ex-council employees on the existing conditions, this of course would mean that our price would be higher and the price of all our competitors would be higher."
So the protection undertakings for workers will be transferred to the employment legislation. As a result of that, and the difficulties which it has caused, a number of Departments have halted their market-testing programmes until further clarification is given. The Foreign Office has halted such programmes. The Welsh Office has told its health authorities to cease contracting out while it seeks legal advice, and the Health and Safety Executive has put its programme on hold because it initially received contradictory legal advice.
With the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, the Government have been forced to accept that market testing will lower pay and conditions in the civil service, and the Bill will allow them to do that. We are opposed to the Bill because of a combination of the transfer of undertakings and the possibility that it will lower terms and conditions and facilitate market testing and contracting out.
The Labour party has a different view of the civil service. Our view is a renewal of the public service tradition to make it more responsive to users, to decentralise it and, above all, to make it accountable. We think that the civil service should remain under a single employer which has public money—taxpayers' money—and which is accountable directly to Parliament or through Ministers. It is clear that that does not happen at present.
Privatisation and contracting out have altered that view of the civil service. All we have to do is to examine the monopolies of gas, water and electricity which provide no additional choice, regardless of the Government's rhetoric to consumers, and are deeply inadequate in their regulation and accountability to Parliament.
We must examine examples of the sort that the Minister gave this evening. If the Minister thinks that social security would function better in the private sector, and if he puts it out to competitive tender, what will happen to Mrs. Smith from Bootle who already has a severe difficulty with accountability and being able to complain about her disability living allowance? If social security is put out to contract and goes to a building society or NatWest, will people such as Mrs. Smith have a genuine system of complaint? Such a system would be lost under the Government's proposals.
The civil service is already demoralised by the Damocles sword of privatisation hanging over its head. We believe that there are ethical values and a culture in the public service which have a sense of equity between individuals and offer a product, whether it is running a prison or our passport agencies. That is not to say that value for money is not important. It is more a question of emphasis.
The Labour party believes that ethical interests, public scrutiny and accountability are crucial to the future of our civil service. As many of my hon. Friends have said, we value our civil service. We accept that there is a need for change, equity of provision, constant review and testing services, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) said, by way of performance indicators or quality management. However, we want a civil service which will be run by people who are


accountable rather than business people who are accountable only to themselves. We want a civil service of that sort when we enter the next century.

Mr. Trimble: I wish to explain briefly why my colleagues and I will oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. During earlier debates, I said that we were worried that the Bill contained a hidden agenda. In the words of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), the Bill will deteriorate the conditions of service and depress salary levels of civil servants who are in agencies which are about to he hived off, or in other parts of the civil service. That is a wholly undesirable way in which to proceed.
That is not to say that there cannot be some advantage and flexibility and a devolution and delegation of responsibility, and so on. However, we fear that behind the legislation lies an agenda which is not in the interests of the public service. There should still be a concept of public service.
I make no apology for referring once again to the parochial aspects which concern me, especially those relating to procedures. As I said, clause 3 authorises the making of an Order in Council by negative resolution. That means that the equivalent provision for Northern Ireland will not be debated in the House.
The Minister said earlier that the Bill was a technical measure. He said that it had not raised a tremendous amount of interest in the House and called attention to the limited attendance in today's debate and earlier proceedings. However, the technical nature of the Bill is not a reason for saying that it should not receive detailed scrutiny. Indeed, it is an argument for even closer scrutiny. It is the function of the House closely to examine measures.
Clause 3 authorises the making of an Order in Council for purposes corresponding to those of the Bill. But "corresponding" does not mean exactly the same. For the reasons that I gave earlier, the Northern Ireland Order in Council could not be drafted with exactly the same terminology as the Bill. It will contain differences. Those differences will not be debated because of clause 3. If clause 3 did not exist, we would have an unamendable Order in Council. But the normal procedure for Orders in Council—publishing a proposal on which there is a consultation—would allow a limited opportunity for people to make representations and have a chance of influencing the nature of the measure.
If the Bill is passed, there will be no opportunity for any scrutiny of the Northern Ireland measure or any opportunity to amend it. That is simply not good enough for a detailed, technical and complex matter. For that reason, as well as the general issue on which I touched, we find the measure unacceptable and we shall oppose it.

Mr. Davidson: There is a consensus in favour of delegation and better management of public services, but anxiety is often expressed by Opposition Members about the hidden agenda behind the Bill. As the debate has gone on, the agenda has become far less hidden. I find myself in the almost paradoxical position that I must vote against

the Government's proposals because they do not go far enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I know. It causes me some difficulty, I must confess.
I am in favour of delegation to management within the civil service, but the Bill does not go far enough, because it does not allow managers freedom to manage without the fetters of Government policy on a series of matters on which we believe that these policies are driven by dogma.
The public services should operate to agreed agendas, free from dogma. I recognise that we need consensually driven policies for the civil service. For example, I wish to see the flexibility of public service constrained by agreed policies on issues such as dispersal. But I am opposed to constraints such as the thrust to regionalisation of pay, which is designed to drive down pay levels, and contracting out.
Are we serious about injecting private sector methods into the public sector? Let us take the example of the National Savings bank in Glasgow. I ask the Minister to give me an example of a private sector organisation which is obliged to contract out its typing services, messenger services, reprographic services, agency accounting, internal audit and training. The private sector does not operate in that way. If we want a decent public sector, it should not be fettered by dogma-driven policies. That is why I oppose the Government's proposals.

Ms Hoey: I regret the need to oppose the Bill. Although it was initially heralded as a poor, misunderstood little Bill, the detailed debate on Second Reading and the examination in Committee, as well as the scrutiny in the House of Lords, have highlighted the importance of the measures proposed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) reiterated the central and overwhelming area of agreement between the Opposition and the Government, but we are not able to offer support for the Bill because of what it lacks. It lacks a conscience. It lacks safeguards to prevent the abuses and errors that may be side effects of the measures that it contains. It lacks a commitment to consulting the unions, even though the Minister has conceded the importance of such procedures. What is more, we shall be left to rely on the Minister's discretion over consultation, when the Bill was sprung on the staff of the civil service without a day's notice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) has been terrier-like in his pursuit of the Government for a commitment to proper consultation. The failure of his efforts is testimony to Government intransigence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar has pressed the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to put the Government's commitment to maintaining and developing equality of opportunity in the Bill, by allowing modest amendments to safeguard the civil service's co-ordinated practices. Our civil service has an excellent reputation in that field, and the Government's reluctance to amend slightly the Bill bodes ill for Government policies, including Opportunity 2000.
The hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), in an earlier discussion, hit a raw nerve on the Conservative Front Bench when he pleaded in the recent debate on public services for a period of reflection so that we could


look first at ways of making our civil service more efficient in its present form before we reach too readily for the privatisation lever.
The Bill does nothing to allay our fears that the Government's hidden agenda is the privatisation of the civil service regardless, on the dogmatic grounds that the private sector necessarily does things better than the public.
Opposition Members have reached out to the Minister with olive branch amendments to cover our concerns, and they have spurned them. My hon. Friends have coaxed and cajoled the Government in search of guarantees to cover the famous impartiality, objectivity and discretion of the civil service. The Minister has turned a stony—[Interruption.] Madam Speaker, do we have to try to speak when people are gabbling over there beyond the Bar?

Madam Speaker: I am sorry, but I thought that the hon. Lady was capable of making herself heard.

Ms. Hoey: I am, but I wish that hon. Members who come in for the last two minutes of the debate might sit wherever they have been a little longer and not come in until the Division is called.
The Minister has turned a stony face on those pleas. Sadly, his commitment and motivation must be questioned, and we shall therefore oppose the Bill.

Mr. Robert Jackson: The House has had an unparalleled opportunity to discuss the civil service in the past few weeks—an opportunity which we have not perhaps had before. There was a statement on the citizens charter White Paper, a debate on the public service, and the Second Reading, Committee and Report stages of the Bill. It has been an interesting experience, which has shown that there is a good deal of common ground between both sides of the House, which is welcome.
In particular, it is clear that the Government and the Opposition share a view of the importance of ensuring that the civil service can give best effect to valued commitment to serving citizens. It is easy for us to take our British system for granted. Apolitical, impartial incorruptible civil services are not altogether common throughout the world, and we are lucky to have what we have here. It is also common ground that it is equally important that the civil service should change and evolve to meet new challenges; otherwise, there will be stagnation and decline, and that is the threat that faces all large organisations.
I am sorry to hear that the Opposition intend to vote against the Bill. No doubt it is their duty to oppose, but it seems unfortunate that they are thereby forced to oppose better management in the civil service.
Let us remind the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) of her words in Committee:
We have no difficulty with decentralisation; we have no difficulty with management decisions being taken close to the place where the work force are".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26 November 1992; c. 75.]
It sounds to me as though the hon. Lady is happy to favour delegation, provided that all managers take the same decision. It is exactly the same as her attitude to market testing—she is in favour, provided that the private sector is not allowed to compete. The fact is that the hon. Lady is willing to wound but afraid to strike.
I pay tribute to the valiant support for the Bill given by Earl Howe in the House of Lords, and to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who said that the sole aim of the Bill was to remove a legal technicality in order to help the civil service to organise itself in the best way to deliver services to the citizen in an effective and efficient manner. There is no hidden agenda behind the Bill: it is simply an attempt to remove a technical impediment to delegation and decentralisation, where there is common ground between us. The Bill will bring positive benefits, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 234.

Division No. 104]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Conway, Derek


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Aitken, Jonathan
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alexander, Richard
Cormack, Patrick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Couchman, James


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cran, James


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Ancram, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arbuthnot, James
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Ashby, David
Devlin, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Dicks, Terry


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Duncan, Alan


Bates, Michael
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Batiste, Spencer
Dunn, Bob


Bellingham, Henry
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Dykes, Hugh


Beresford, Sir Paul
Eggar, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Elletson, Harold


Body, Sir Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evennett, David


Bowden, Andrew
Faber, David


Bowis, John
Fabricant, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brandreth, Gyles
Fishburn, Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bright, Graham
Forth, Eric


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Freeman, Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gallie, Phil


Butcher, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Butler, Peter
Garnier, Edward


Butterfill, John
Gill, Christopher


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gillan, Cheryl


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carrington, Matthew
Gorst, John


Carttiss, Michael
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Churchill, Mr
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clappison, James
Hague, William


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Coe, Sebastian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Colvin, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Congdon, David
Hannam, Sir John






Hargreaves, Andrew
Oppenheim, Phillip


Harris, David
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Page, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Paice, James


Hayes, Jerry
Patnick, Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hendry, Charles
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Redwood, John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Roger


Knox, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Soames, Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Speed, Sir Keith


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spencer, Sir Derek


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spink, Dr Robert


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spring, Richard


Lidington, David
Sproat, Iain


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


Lynne, Ms Liz
Stewart, Allan


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


MacKay, Andrew
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sykes, John


Madel, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thomason, Roy


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Merchant, Piers
Thurnham, Peter


Milligan, Stephen
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Trend, Michael


Moate, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Monro, Sir Hector
Twinn, Dr Ian


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moss, Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walden, George


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wallace, James


Norris, Steve
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Waterson, Nigel
Winterton, Mrs Ann(Congleton)


Watts, John
Winterton, Nicholas(Macc'f'ld)


Wells, Bowen
Wolfson, Mark


Wheeler, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Whitney, Ray
Yeo, Tim


Whittingdale, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Widdecombe, Ann



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Willetts, David
Mr. Robert Hughes.


Wilshire, David





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Etherington, Bill


Adams, Mrs Irene
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ainger, Nick
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Fisher, Mark


Allen, Graham
Flynn, Paul


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Ashton, Joe
Foulkes, George


Barnes, Harry
Fraser, John


Battle, John
Fyfe, Maria


Bayley, Hugh
Galbraith, Sam


Beggs, Roy
Galloway, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gapes, Mike


Benton, Joe
Garrett, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Gerrard, Neil


Berry, Dr. Roger
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Betts, Clive
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blunkett, David
Godsiff, Roger


Boateng, Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyce, Jimmy
Gordon, Mildred


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burden, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Byers, Stephen
Hain, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Hall, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Hanson, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Henderson, Doug


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heppell, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cann, Jamie
Hinchliffe, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoey, Kate


Clapham, Michael
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coffey, Ann
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hutton, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cummings, John
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Janner, Greville


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Denham, John
Keen, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dixon, Don
Khabra, Piara S.


Dobson, Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Donohoe, Brian H.
Leighton, Ron


Dowd, Jim
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lewis, Terry


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Litherland, Robert


Eagle, Ms Angela
Livingstone, Ken


Eastham, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Enright, Derek
Loyden, Eddie






McAllion, John
Radice, Giles


McAvoy, Thomas
Randall, Stuart


McFall, John
Raynsford, Nick


McKelvey, William
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McLeish, Henry
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McMaster, Gordon
Rogers, Allan


McNamara, Kevin
Rooney, Terry


McWilliam, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Madden, Max
Rowlands, Ted


Mahon, Alice
Sedgemore, Brian


Mandelson, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Marek, Dr John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Short, Clare


Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)
Skinner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maxton, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meale, Alan
Snape, Peter


Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spearing, Nigel


Milburn, Alan
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Miller, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Stevenson, George


Morgan, Rhodri
Stott, Roger


Morley, Elliot
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Tipping, Paddy


Mudie, George
Trimble, David


Mullin, Chris
Turner, Dennis


Murphy, Paul
Vaz, Keith


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Walley, Joan


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Hara, Edward
Wareing, Robert N


Olner, William
Watson, Mike


O'Neill, Martin
Wicks, Malcolm


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Parry, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Brian


Pickthall, Colin
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter L.
Wise, Audrey


Pope, Greg
Worthington, Tony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wray, Jimmy


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wright, Dr Tony


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prescott, John



Primarolo, Dawn
Tellers for the Noes:


Purchase, Ken
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment—[Mr. Robin Squire.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: I was not present on Friday when the Bill was debated, but I have read the report of the debate, and I entirely support the principle of the Bill. During the debate, the Minister made two points about expenditure. First, he said:
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has agreed that all significant direct costs incurred by local authorities in carrying out a project under the technical links scheme will be met from the know-how funds.
I take it that that will be covered by the money resolution, which is required, as a matter of formality, for private Members' Bills.
Secondly,
the Minister said,
we have made it known that the Secretary of State is prepared to sanction under section 19 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 local authority expenditure under the technical links scheme."—[Offieial Report, 11 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 1155.]
Does that mean that the Secretary of State would sanction local authority borrowing, or does it mean that the technical links scheme will be covered entirely by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office under the resolution, and that only local authority expenditure in this country relating to the technical links scheme will be covered by that second point?
I think that the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill is well intentioned. I believe that many local authorities are keen to establish links with countries that need technical assistance and expertise. However, many local authority residents take the view that the priorities of such technical links should be financed by central Government: local authorities are very short of money, and many people take exception to what they see as lavish trips abroad at a time when, for example, schools are crumbling and roads need repairing. I feel that the emphasis on central Government expenditure is right.
The Bill provides for consent by the Secretary of State to the provision of advice and assistance by local authorities. That invokes the de minimis rule, which governs the level of expenditure below which such consent will not be required. In Friday's debate, the Minister said that an announcement would be made. In the context of this motion, can he tell us what the limit will be?
I know that it is the habit of the House not to question expenditure, but I do not happen to agree with that habit. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what gross sums are involved in annual expenditure. As he will appreciate, a number of local authorities providing technical advice and assistance could become involved in considerable expenditure under the two provisions that he mentioned on Friday. It would be interesting to have some idea of the scale of the Government's proposed expenditure.
It would also be useful to know how central Government will supervise expenditure. It is possible, for example, that three or four local authorities, or more, would concentrate their advice and assistance, perhaps through a technical links scheme, on a single area in a single country, because such links had been established by chance. When provision is thin on the ground, will the Government make any provision subject to the availability of financial assistance in the way that I have described? That is one of the useful things that central Government can do.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): The prime reason for the money resolution is that the Local Government Bill will involve the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office in new expenditure in, for example, processing the occasional application for consent. That is the central reason for the resolution. I echo and endorse the view expressed by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), as he will know from reading the report of last Friday's debate, when we went into some detail, that the Bill has widespread support and that it is expected that money will not fall on council tax payers to any significant extent.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South mentioned the sanction under section 19 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. The purpose of that provision is essentially to ensure that, in advance of the legislation receiving Royal Assent, there is no question of a district auditor being able to take action against a local authority which is offering technical assistance to other countries. It is a rarely used provision, but it exists to ensure that, when a measure such as the Bill has overwhelming support in the House, no action is taken against a specific authority. That would be unreasonable.
The hon. Member asked about consents. I do not have the figures beside me now, although I had them for Friday's debate. We are going out to consultation to local authorities on this and on a number of aspects of the Bill. From memory, we are basing the figure on population. With a population of under 50,000, there will be a limit of £20,000, rising to a consent of no more than £60,000 for authorities with a population of more than 250,000. If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the matter, because I am relying on memory at the moment, and if I have the figures wrong, he will be the first to point that out.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We are not practising for the Maastricht debate when we come back in January. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) might have been when he kicked off the debate, but we realise that there is a time limit on money resolution debates.
The Bill received its Second Reading on Friday, and it had all-party support. A few days later, a money resolution is provided by the Government. About a fortnight ago, we had a long series of points of order on Maastricht. One of the main points in the first run at Maastricht was the fact that we were arguing for a referendum. The Government said that there was no provision for a money resolution. We wanted to argue that occasionally the Government provide a money resolution when it suited their purpose. They do so, as I pointed out then, for private Members' Bills.
This Bill is a first-class example. Within the space of a few days, the Government have provided the necessary money resolution for a Bill which has all-party support. I hope that the Minister will ensure that his colleagues understand that, when we come back to Maastricht after the recess, the Government will have to provide a money resolution for the referendum, so that people outside this place can have a vote on Maastricht. Let us have no more funny business; let the Government not say that they are not capable of providing a money resolution, because that is what they have done tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.

TRANSPORT

Ordered,
That Mr. Jack Aspinwall be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr. Nigel Evans be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

Emergency Telephone Service

Ms Kate Hoey: I have great pleasure in presenting tonight a petition with 250,000 signatures which was organised by the Union of Communication Workers. It was signed by people all over the country, both members of the public and workers in the emergency services. Most importantly, it was also signed by people who use the 999 service, the service that saves lives. I am pleased that I did not have to carry the petition, because it filled six boxes; I am grateful to the attendants who have brought them here tonight.

The petition says:

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House decide to maintain the current 999 emergency telephone service provided by B.T. and reject the proposal to transfer this service to a call handling agency.

And your petitioners, as in duty hound, will ever pray, &c.

To lie upon the Table.

Pit Closures

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. John Evans: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise on the Floor of the House the question of the 10 collieries remaining on the Government hit list for closure. It is psychologically important that the issue be ventilated in the House, because the knowledge that it is before the House now, and will be continually before us when we return from the Christmas recess, gives heart to the coal miners affected.
As you are aware, Madam Speaker, I sought an Adjournment debate because of the unsatisfactory answers given by the Minister for Energy to Trade and Industry questions a couple of weeks ago. However, the real background to the debate is the announcement made by the President of the Board of Trade on 19 October to the effect that he proposed to agree with the Coal Board and close 31 collieries, putting more than 30,000 miners out of work and more than 60,000 related workers out of a job as a direct result of the closure programme.
That programme was the most savage rationalisation that a Government have ever attempted to inflict on any industry or sector of industry in this country in such a short time. It was immediately greeted with massive outrage by the British public. There was a mixture of motives behind that outrage, but it is fair to say that most people regarded the closure programme as one of the worst cases of industrial vandalism that they had ever witnessed. There was also great anger that the Tory Government sought to take vindictive revenge on the miners. The public were also aware of the massive waste of coal reserves, which do not belong to the Government, or to one generation, but to the people. Millions of tonnes of those precious reserves were to be left in the ground.
There is no doubt that the uproar generated shook the Government to their foundations so much so that when a debate was to take place on a Labour motion 48 hours later, on 21 October, the Government caved in before the debate started. To our astonishment the President of the Board of Trade, who on Monday had not mentioned the word "review", announced a review of 21 of the 31 pits originally scheduled for closure. The right hon. Gentleman said that 10 pits would remain on the closure list, but, according to him, and according to the Secretary of State for Wales, who wound up the debate on that fateful night, even those 10 would be subject to a full review and genuine consultations.
The Secretary of State for Wales spelled the pledge out categorically, saying:
Let me make matters absolutely clear about the 10 pits. British Coal is under a statutory duty to consult on those closures … It must be a genuine consultation. British Coal has given the criteria to show that those pits are currently loss making and have no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future. If there is any serious doubt about whether those criteria apply, British Coal will have to demonstrate that the doubt is removed and that the criteria have been met, because, under the legislation, it not only has to give reasons for closure, but it must prove that the consultation is a genuine one. That is absolutely clear."—[Official Report, 21 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 526.]
The Secretary of State for Wales used the words:
loss making and have no prospect of viability".

I shall concentrate on those words, and relate them to Parkside colliery, at Newton-le-Willows, in my constituency, because it provides a good example of the impact on the other nine collieries.
The President of the Board of Trade made a statement on 19 October. In reply to my question about Parkside colliery, he said:
The figures that British Coal has shown me for that particular colliery indicate that it is not able to make a profit even in today's circumstances. That is the real world that I have to confront."[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c.224–25.]
I subsequently obtained British Coal's profit and loss statement for Parkside colliery, which I quoted in the debate on 21 October. I quote it again. In 1987–88, Parkside made a profit of £5,093,000. In 1988–89 it made a profit of £3,258,000. In 1989-90, it made a profit of £1,729,000. In 1990–91, it made a profit of £5,074,000. In 1991–92, after a difficult first six months when it lost money, it recovered so well in the second half of the year that the profit for the year was £2,874,000.
Those figures show any reasonable person that Parkside is a profitable colliery. The chairman of British Coal, at a meeting that I and eight or nine colleagues had with him and his senior officers at Hobart house on Wednesday 18 October, admitted that Parkside was profitable. At Trade and Industry questions on 2 December, I asked the Minister for Energy to publish the report by J. T. Boyd, which has lain on his desk since October 1991. I understand that the report maintains that five of the 10 pits on the closure hit list were profitable and that they should remain as part of a viable British Coal mining industry. The Minister ignored the question arid the report remains unpublished. I challenge him to publish the Boyd report, which he has had for 14 months, so that we can see what Boyd said about the pits.
Miners at Parkside colliery have been treated quite disgracefully. Following the statement of the President of the Board of Trade on 19 October, and notwithstanding everything that was said in the debate on Wednesday 21 October, on Friday 23 October NUM officials at Parkside colliery were brusquely told that coal production would end that day. Consultation on the viability of the mine, the likelihood of its being saved and its future have been non-existent.
In the statutory 90–day consultation period, which is required only to discuss redundancy, British Coal is insisting that every miner must report to work every day on his shift time, even though everyone knows that they will all be sent home. Some of those men must travel 30 to 35 miles to get to the colliery, and to bring men in at 5 am or 6 am is quite disgraceful. It is all part of British Coal's policy of putting psychological pressure on the men to accept redundancy payments.
What will happen to miners when the 90-day consultation period runs out? I hope that the Minister will answer that question, because miners certainly want to know. A brand new face at Parkside, which had cost £6 million to install, was ready to go into full production. Miners inform me that that face was the finest that they had ever had and, to quote their words, "they would have been printing money by Christmas" with that face.
Today, one face at Parkside is threatened with extinction. Despite British Coal's High Court pledge to protect the fabric of pits, the face known as W31 at Parkside is suffering serious divergence and the miners


there told me today that, unless that face is worked quickly, within a few days, it will soon become unpassable, and that would mean the end of that face. Every request that the miners and the union have made to cut coal on that face has been rejected by the management of the colliery.
The basic facts about Parkside are clear. Its performance in the last five years has been excellent. The pit had a difficult summer, largely because of unexpected geological problems with the installation of the new face, but by September those problems were widely viewed as having been solved. The new face offered every prospect of clawing back earlier losses. That assessment was made by the NUM's mining engineer, who emphasised that the availability of good, high-quality reserves did not appear to be in dispute. There are 40 million tonnes of coal reserves at Parkside colliery.
British Coal's claim that Parkside has no future is not based on a judgment of the pit's efficiency but on the market crisis facing British Coal. Coal reserves are to be abandoned, valuable machinery left underground and the skilled work force told that their right to work no longer has any value.
The Government talk much about the cost of keeping pits open. That is not the point. The real issue is the cost of closing them. The principal cost is that of a sizeable and, in all probability, long-lasting increase in unemployment, which is already unacceptably high. For example, at Parkside colliery there are 724 employees classified as miners. Each is entitled to a payment under the scheme of an average of £24,000. For every 100 miners made redundant by British Coal, the corporation also sheds 33 other employees, which means that British Coal will shed a further 239 jobs. Each of those will be entitled to a redundancy payment at least as good as that offered to the miners.
The end of mining at Parkside would mean significant job losses in firms that supply services direct to the colliery, including private contractors, suppliers of equipment and railway and road haulage workers who remove coal from the site. The effect on the economy of the north-west would be utterly destructive. There are no new jobs waiting to be taken by those made redundant. The adult unemployment rate in the St. Helens travel-to-work area is over 14 per cent. So added to the cost of the redundancy scheme are the costs of the dole. The annual cost of an unemployed worker is estimated to be £7,900 in terms of unemployment benefit and lost taxes.
Therefore, it is now possible to measure the cost of Parkside's closure. The average redundancy payments to 724 Parkside miners and 239 other British Coal employees would be about £23 million. The cost of 963 newly unemployed people, at £7,900 each, would be another £7.5 million, making a total in excess of £30 million. That is not counting the cost incurred by all the other workers in associated industries who would also be made redundant, the cost of which would, I suspect, add another £10 million to £15 million to the cost of closing Parkside.
The Government must put in place an energy policy that utilises the nation's coal reserves in an efficient and environmentally friendly manner. They must ensure a level playing field for British Coal to supply competitively priced coal in bulk volume to the generating companies.
The Government must restrict the dash for expensive gas and safeguard existing cheaper, coal-fired power stations. We must also press the European Community for a total ban on dumped coal within our borders. We must seek the support of the European Community to export British coal into the Community.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am very pleased that my hon. Friend is making this very powerful case in respect of a pit that is one of the newest in Britain. It was developed only a few years ago in pit terms. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that, with 20 million tons of coal coming into Britain at this time, that represents nearly £1 billion loss on the balance of payments. We can ill afford that when we are about £12 billion in debt.
Is it not crazy to be sacking those miners at Parkside in my hon. Friend's constituency and miners in other constituencies, costing all that money with the dole, when German coal at £110 a ton is coming from the Common Market into Britain and we cannot sell what is the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe?

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. He has saved me the necessity of suggesting that one of the other things that the Government could do is to give the same sort of support to our coal industry as the Germans have to theirs.
If such things are done in the review which the Government are carrying out, I submit that Parkside and most of the other pits will survive and have a prosperous future. Eighty per cent. of Parkside's coal goes just 12 miles by an environmentally friendly merry-go-round train to be burnt at Fiddler's Ferry power station. That power station, I understand, is now looking round for alternative supplies of coal, because obviously it is not getting Parkside coal, and it is increasingly concerned about the quality and the problems associated with imported coal being brought through the port of Bootle.
Parkside is a profitable pit. There is a market for its coal and it has an efficient work force. Perhaps the Minister will now explain why Parkside, with the record that it has, is doomed to closure if the Government's plans are carried out.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on securing this debate and on arranging it for a reasonable time of the night.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of points, such as imports, the possibility of exporting to the rest of the European Community and the point raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about subsidies. Incidentally, I am sure it was a slip of the tongue, but of course there is no German steam coal for generation purposes imported into the United Kingdom; there is, however, some small amount of anthracite and coking coal imported and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, those imports displace other imports of anthracite and coking coal rather than United Kingdom coal. As he also knows, I am sure, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has very firm views on the future of the anthracite mines in his constituency.
I have listened very carefully to the points made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North with regard to matters that are the subject of the review. I am sure that he will not


be surprised to hear me say that it would not be right for me tonight to pre-empt the results of the review. We hope to publish it in White Paper form early in the new year and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are committed to a debate on the Floor of the House about that.
Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Trade and Industry Select Committee is completing its investigations into this matter and my right hon. Friend and I were giving evidence to that Committee this afternoon.

Mr. Derek Enright: Is the Minister aware that the miners in the 10 pits have absolutely no confidence in this review because they feel that the fabric of the mines has been left in such a state that they cannot be resuscitated even if it comes to the stage when the Minister or the President of the Board of Trade, or even, God help us, the chairman of British Coal, decides that it shall so be?

Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a difference between the review to which I was referring—which covers the 21 pits—and the statutory consultation period, which covers the 10 pits which are, strictly speaking, the subject of the debate. Parkside is one of the 10 for which the procedure will be the statutory consultation period. I shall take a little time to explain the background to that because some questions are often asked about the 10 pits; a number of those questions were raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North.
It is fair to say that there has been some speculation about the basis on which the 10 pits were chosen. The answer to how and why they were chosen is straightforward and has already been explained to the House. They are the 10 pits which British Coal informed the Government were currently making losses and had no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Eggar: I shall, of course, give way to my hon. Friend, but, as I was saying, those were the criteria on which the Government took the decision that the 10 pits should go to statutory consultation.

Mrs. Peacock: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend says. We continue to hear British Coal's view that the 10 pits were uneconomic. I understand that the Minister and the President of the Board of Trade say that they must accept British Coal's figures, but can the Minister tell me, the House and anyone else who is listening how we can get correct figures for those mines? We have been told that British Coal's official figures are not correct, that all those mines are not loss-making and do not have the bleak future that British Coal predicts.

Mr. Eggar: I shall deal with exactly that point later.
We are also asked why the 10 pits were not included in the moratorium and in the coal review. Again, the answer is straightforward—it relates to the economics of the pits, as we have been informed of them by British Coal.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: No, I am sorry. I have already given way. It is not fair to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North, whose debate this is—

Mr. Hoyle: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister appears not to be giving way.

Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order, not a point of frustration.

Mr. Hoyle: I do not wish to be critical, but I have as many constituents working at Parkside, as has my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), who spoke so strongly about it and I want to make a point to the Minister who has given way twice.

Mr. Eggar: rose—

Mr. Hoyle: I have not quite finished.

Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way. If he is not giving way, there is nothing that the Chair can do.

Mr. Eggar: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. I shall try to make progress and if the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) later still feels that I have not answered his questions and if time permits, I shall willingly give way.
The reason the pits are the subject of statutory consultation is that British Coal told us that the pits are currently loss-making and have no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future. Let me explain why. British Coal expects coal prices to its main customers—the generators—to decline significantly from next April. If the 10 pits are loss making at current prices, their position will clearly worsen at lower prices.
I stress that it is British Coal which is undertaking the current statutory consultation process, not the Government. It follows that representations—for ex-ample, where this or that pit is profitable or loss-making—must be best pursued in the context of those statutory consultations.

Mr. John Evans: Is the Minister aware that the miners and the National Union of Mineworkers constantly raise that point in the alleged or supposed consultations, but British Coal will not refer to the points to which the Minister has just referred?

Mr. Eggar: I will try to make rapid progress and then reach the points that have been raised.
It might help if I take this opportunity to spell out the nature of the statutory consultation process. The process is taking place under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which was previously section 99 of the Employment Protection Act 1975. The participants are British Coal and the relevant mining trade unions. The process began at the end of October and the consultation period must be not less than 90 days. That is relevant to the point raised earlier about the 91st day.
Section 188 of the 1992 Act requires British Coal to provide the unions with specified information; to consider any representations made by the unions and to reply to the representations. That is clearly laid down in section 188.
British Coal informs us that it has sent the relevant trade unions an information package on each colliery. According to British Coal, the package includes the pit's performance, its financial results and other associated key data. The unions—if not Opposition Members—will have


that financial package. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) is aware of that.
British Coal has said that the consultation will relate to all aspects of the proposed redundancies at the 10 pits, including the reasons for the decision for them to close; the numbers of men involved; the extent to which transfers may be possible; and the terms of redundancies and assistance available. I am told that British Coal has held statutory consultation meetings on each pit at group and colliery levels. Whether there are further meetings depends on the wishes of the trade unions.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the Minister now please address the powerful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North about Parkside? The Minister has generalised about all the pits. My hon. Friend said that Parkside has always been profitable. A new face has just been opened and that would make it even more profitable. Will the Minister address the problems of that pit?

Mr. Eggar: The position for Parkside, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, is that because it is involved in the statutory consultation process, that process takes place between the trade unions and British Coal. The correct procedure is for discussions to take place between British Coal and the relevant trade unions. The Government are not party to that statutory consultation process under section 188 of the 1992 Act.
I have been informed by British Coal that it has made a package of information available to the unions. If the unions want further meetings—in addition to those that have already taken place—on the future of the pits, I am informed that British Coal will agree to those meetings. Under the provisions, the discussions must take place between—

Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: I will give way, but I have only a few minutes left.

Mr. McCartney: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), I have constituents who work at Parkside. It is a last refuge as all the collieries in my constituency have closed since 1987. The Minister is not addressing the issue that British Coal gave a guarantee to the High Court to protect the fabric of the colliery. The President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Wales gave commitments in the House that they would ensure that that commitment would be upheld. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North is saying that that commitment is wilfully not being upheld and Parkside's face is collapsing. What is the Minister going to do about that? What steps is he going to take to ensure that in the next seven days that face is cut to protect the colliery? That is the real issue tonight. All the rest is a load of guff.

Mr. Eggar: British Coal has given us quite clear assurances about the way in which it will seek to preserve the fabric of the colliery. I remind the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that, after the Scargill strike of 1984, there was widespread concern that collieries would not be able to open and start producing coal. In fact, after a long period when there was no mining when there was nothing like the degree of care and maintenance that is being carried out at Parkside—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.